Vinny

Joined

• started 15 topics
• posted 982 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Vinny

• 
  32

  A quick question:

  by Vinny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i disassociated one year ago.

  no meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.

  there was one jw young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Thanks for all of your comments. I am planning to go then. It's just I'd rather avoid the Kingdom Hall if at all possible...
  
  He was a really good kid. Lived a double life; but, really it was all he ever knew. Friends, family were all JW's. He just preferred to have fun behind the elders backs rather than give up all friends and family, I guess. I was one of the elders on his judicial committee a few years ago, when we busted him for having a girl spend the night in his bed. Only reproved him though. Said they never had sex. We knew better though. Felt kind of sorry for him since his parents and brother had all moved to another country when he was like 20 or so. We ended up having a lot of good times together just before I left the faith.
  
  The day he bought that motorcycle, about four months or so ago, I knew there was trouble. I sat him down one day and told him about all of the people that I knew, who are no longer here solely due to owning a motorcycle. Yet, he revvvved that thing up so high when just driving through the neighborhood anyway. It was just a matter of time...
  
  Death sucks.
• 
  32

  A quick question:

  by Vinny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i disassociated one year ago.

  no meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.

  there was one jw young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Real quick:
  
  "Find out if there is a visitation at a funeral home. That is the only place where the
  deceased doesn't take a back seat to the doctrine."
  
  *** Believe me I hoped that woiuld be the case. But no, just the Kingdom Hall. Strike three for me...
  
  
  "Can you bring a friend"?
  
  
  ***My wife has faded away and she will be there. The weird thing is they can all talk to her and have to avoid me. Also another neighbor will go too.
  
  That helps. I can hear it now:
  
  "Brother Vinny is coming back" .......
  
  sheesh.
• 
  32

  A quick question:

  by Vinny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i disassociated one year ago.

  no meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.

  there was one jw young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Am headed out for a few hours. If there are any other replies when I return, I will read them then. Your opinions arte VERY helpful! Aloha.
• 
  32

  A quick question:

  by Vinny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i disassociated one year ago.

  no meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.

  there was one jw young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Thanks for the replies. I agree with all of them, even though they are not ALL of the same opinion. And THAT is the problem.
  
  Who cares what others think; I AM OUT. I have been shunned by all of them without reason. Forget them!
  
  But then again, my stepson and stepdaughter, who still goes would be hurt, as would the parents of the kid who died along with other friends that we used to do things with. He was married for exactly one year. His wedding being the last JW anything that I went to. His wife still lives next door too. I could just write a letter, give a card, flowers etc. etc. to express mu condolences
  
  But I also think just go and it will soon pass. The other thought is how uncomfortable might my presence make the family feel? They cannot speak to me, nor I to anybody there. Probably not too bad if I just go and then leave immediately after.
  
  I am probably leaning towards going. But it sucks...
• 
  32

  A quick question:

  by Vinny in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i disassociated one year ago.

  no meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.

  there was one jw young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  I disassociated one year ago. No meetings, no memorial no nothing since then.
  
  There was one JW young man that talked to me continuously and who also lived right next door, 25 yrs old, a best friend of my step-son, (we all fished on my boat at least a half dozen times together). Anyway, he was killed last Wednesday in a motorcylcle accident. Was passing a car on a curve when a pickup truck came around the corner head on. His funeral is Saturday. Unfortunately for me, it is at the Kingdom Hall. I do not want to put on a suit, drive to the Hall, walk through the doors, see all of the same people, sing a Kingdom melody and listen to another JW funeral discourse, (which as most know is really only another JW Witness opportunity with the dead person's life relagated to somewhere in the background). My deprogramming has been going nicely!
  
  But, I really liked this kid. And he was very close to our family, being one of my stepson's best friends. If I don't go, I feel as if I really look like some heartless loser here.
  
  What would you do?
  
  Any other suggestions?
  
  Thanks ahead of time.
  
  Vinny
• 
  58

  BIG ELDERS MEETING ON THE BLOOD ISSUE! SHOCKING CHANGES AFOOT!?

  by Gill in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have just been informed that something is going in with the blood issue within the borg.. a large meeting is being held this weekend with local elders and also many elders from all over the country/the united kingdom and members from the bethel and hospital liason committee to discuss the blood issue.. is anyone else aware of what this is going to be about?.

  i wondered whether this would be part of the expected or possible changes that the organization is expected to announce this year that might lose them many members.

  any elders here know anything?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  I officially left due to this pathetic embarrassment of an issue. I never felt comfortable with this position, even in the beginning. Yet, like many others I just "trusted" the WT Society on this one. That is, until the net exposed hundreds of other mistakes made by the WT org. Then after a thorough examination (due to the WT Society credibility taking a major HIT from these newer revelations), one that took enormous amounts of time, I came to the inescapable conclusion that this policy forced on all JW's is as wrong as the NO Vaccinations, No Organ Transplants, No Alternative Service, NUMEROUS end of the world mis-predictions and bad policies before it.
  
  Here were my specific conclusions for rejecting this JW blood policy, as turned in with my letter of disassociation in Feb 06. Not one JW, either in person before this was turned in, nor from any website/e-mail debate/exchange afterwards has been able to refute one bit of it. NOTHING. Only thing I hear over and over is wait on Jehovah, and the Light gets Brighter. 60 years is pretty long to wait....
  
  
  WHY THE JW BLOOD POLICY IS IN ERROR:
  
  *** A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die. A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.
  
  
  *** The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: "blood must be drained out" and to, "abstain from... blood" were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be "poured out" rather than eaten or drank. This token act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement. By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application. In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A "living" donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another "living" individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what Jehovah wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?
  
  
  *** We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life? In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: "And he said to them: "Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things." The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: "So they (Pharisees) asked him "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath." If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal's life despite this "work" being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!". Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal's life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious. Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper "respect" for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of "our own" to die due to such a strict stand by the society.
  
  
  *** I've also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same "principle" of Jesus' valuing a person's life over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her "unclean", and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: "Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness...." Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed letter of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.
  
  
  *** Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society's position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society's view-) reads: 28 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute, eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from "things sacrificed to idols" Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there helps the reader to see that the "eating of food sacrificed to idols" was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute, universal meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer "Gentile" Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these traditional Jewish Christians, this decree was given. This is also how most bible scholars today understand these verses. The account at Acts 21:20-32 gives further evidence that this decree was given because the older, traditional Jewish Christians were being stumbled, since once again this very same prohibition found at Acts 15:28, 29 is repeated ten years later in Acts 21:25. Notice specifically how verses 24 brings out that this decree was given because the Jewish Christians thought Paul had discarded all Jewish law and customs which were causing these Jewish Christians to be upset and stumbled. Paul's words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 once again only adds further evidence that this command was not an eternal, universal law from God since again, he there states that "eating foods sacrificed to idols" (also included in Acts 15:28,29 along with blood) is a personal decision for each individual Christian. The command to abstain from fornication however is an absolute, eternal, universal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures. And even if it were considered a universal, eternal command, which clearly it is not, that decree then would be regarding the EATING of animal blood, and not the receiving of blood fluid from a living human donor to another living human donor.
  
  
  *** If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)
  
  
  *** I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.
  
  
  *** Another thing that now clouds the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood "fractions" are now permissible. Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes. Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common "fractions" still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a "concentrated" form of blood. These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood", since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world's blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah's Witnesses today? And two, if then, we as Jehovah's Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are we then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that we now are allowed to tap into? And, why are we still not allowed to store our own blood? The pouring of blood "back to the ground" was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence we are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws. It sure appears to me then, that we no longer abstain from blood, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet we are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can we store our own blood.
  
  
  Another problem with "fractions" (for me) is that certain fractions such as "Albumin" ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not. "Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society. Another fraction, Blood "Platelets" are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That's not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society. I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this "approved" and "disapproved" list with no explanations anywhere. It's also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 97 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions. It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they're kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. "Hemopure" is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow's Blood. How can we as humans be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use our own blood, or that of another living human donor?
  
  So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here; that blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the "eating or drinking" of animal blood that is forbidden (not transfusions). How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose. That Saul's men were not killed after eating blood. How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions. That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the "animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath" illustration he used, and the "Woman with a flow of blood" real-life example. How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need. That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands. And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say "fractions" of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though we can use cow's blood. It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society's position on blood transfusions today. In fact I believe it was an erroneous decision from the beginning, and has only been made even more confusing and unstable with the latest "fractions" adjustments.
• 
  71

  A Letter to the Governing Body

  by truthsetsonefree in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  (km 6/03 p. 1 par.

  9 building for an eternal future, w87 2/1 p. 15 par.

  (km 11/88 p. 4 par.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Nice letter. Very well written. I particularly appreciated this point:
  
  (Luke 21:7-8) "7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are destined to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that YOU are not misled; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time has approached.’ Do not go after them." Your currently available publications do not even address this Scripture. It would appear to be urging alert Christians not to follow men who proclaim the "end" being near. Or do you consider yourselves exempt because you are "God’s Channel?" Then where is the independent proof, where is THE EVIDENCE that you are above this Scriptural standard?
  
  ***I doubt though that it will make any difference or even be read by anybody upstairs, that could make a difference in certain policies. Perhaps if you addressed it specifically to one of the GB members. I've considered doing that with my own DA letter, since I have met and worked with a couple of them a couple of years ago. We also make unique souvenirs and gave them several freebies to pass out at Bethel, so they would remember me especially if I sent more of the same with that letter. But aside from some kind of personal relationship with a GB member, it will unlikely ever make it up that far.
  
  What you CAN do however is share it in as many places as possible, just as you did here. Lurkers, fence sitters along with friends and relatives of some who've already left will get to read it. I personally have had dozens of people contact me since posting mine on this an another site. In fact I'd suggest you also post there too. Go here:
  
  http://p196.ezboard.com/fexjehovahswitnessforumfrm14
  
  It will stay up on that website much longer. Mine is still read often, a full year later and I still get comments or e-mails from people asking questions as recently as this month.
  
  Here is my own DA letter turned in back in Feb 2006:
  
  http://p196.ezboard.com/Letter-of-disassociation/fexjehovahswitnessforumfrm14.showMessage?topicID=237.topic
  
  Different issues but similar in tone.
  
  
  
  
  
  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914675044/104-9391991-2543967?v=glance&n=283155
  
  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914675168/104-9391991-2543967?v=glance&n=283155
  
  He was on the Governing Body for nine years and left altogether, due to conscientious reasons as many of us have done, and as it sounds you are about to do. His insight is unparalleled from my experience.
  
  Let us know how it goes. Thanks again for taking the time to share your letter on this board.
  
  All the best, Vinny
• 
  75

  I ran them off !

  by oldflame in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the witnesses came to my complex today, this time it was two very good looking women.

  i walked up to them and calmly said that this is the second warning that they were trespassing on my property and that no jehovah's witnesses are aloud on this property knocking on doors.

  i have a tenant who is a jw and this is fine with me and they are aloud to come and visit her but i do not allow them to bother my tenants as they all prefer they stay away anyways.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Oldflame says:.."So if you who disagree with my actions telling the JW to get off my property, well hopefully you will be able to stand up against them one day and speak your right mind to them also instead of cowering from them."
  
  
  
  
  
  Here is what I stated for the record:
  
  
  "These are HIS words, not mine:
  
  "but I think I scared the living hell out of those two women. LOL I'm not a bad guy either but I sure felt bad when I scared them. (GOOD BAD)"
  
  So, he feels like some BAD-ASS tough guy (GOOD BAD), when he scared those two women. Big man here. This is why it sure sounds to me like he's on some kind of power-trip.
  
  He then goes further now with this statement:
  
  "My tenants *LOVE ME* for the fact I chase them off. LOL But I told them next time I was just going to call the police and have them arrested".
  
  So now, we have the fact that oldflame here feels like a big tough "badass" for scaring them, telling them that he will have those two ladies "arrested". And now says how His tenants just "LOVE HIM" for his manliness here. Sounds like a self-stroking, egotistical power trip to me folks.
  
  He goes further now by stating:
  
  "I am here to tell you that I have damn good reason for my anger"
  
  Well, you said you were "very polite"; so which is it oldflame, angry or polite? You came across to me as being very rude, like some kind of redneck, feeling like a badass for scaring two little JW ladies, mentioning how the tenants just loved you for this big bold stand of yours. You then post your story here patting yourself on the back along the way. And you wonder why some have a problem with this?"
  
  
  **** So at least we are clear on the problem, so I hope. Also I am not judging you, as you also assert above. I am simply expressing my opinion that I felt you were unfairly harsh on those women based on what YOU told us. You seemed to get a real kick out of their fear. Sorry if this makes you unhappy. But perhaps you should just take a second to consider what was said. It should also not matter any if a poster has 10,000 comments or just one. That has very little relevancy in this case. I thought you came across as rude and enjoyed their fear while at bthe same time commenting about how the tenants love you. It all sounded rather shallow and ego-driven to a new reader; in this case that was me.
  
  But to be honest, I probably would have said nothing at all until you got to these two sentences, really showing a lack of respect and class. Remember this?
  
  "Allow me to say this one more time to those who think I am a rude prick"...
  
  and
  
  "I am not a rude prick to anyone unless they really deserve it and if anyone has been rude here it is you for your assumptions and accusations against me."
  
  
  Anyway, I am sure by now you know exactly how I feel about it all. Agree, disagree, consider it, throw it out the window, at least it was said. And for me, that's more than good enough.
  
  Have a great New Year Oldflame. I wish only good things for you and yours. Thanks for taking the time.
  
  Happy Trails!
• 
  75

  I ran them off !

  by oldflame in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the witnesses came to my complex today, this time it was two very good looking women.

  i walked up to them and calmly said that this is the second warning that they were trespassing on my property and that no jehovah's witnesses are aloud on this property knocking on doors.

  i have a tenant who is a jw and this is fine with me and they are aloud to come and visit her but i do not allow them to bother my tenants as they all prefer they stay away anyways.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Don't you guys sleep?
  
  Of course getting to know oldflame longer may add more insight to my overall opinions about him. Based on this thread however, I stand by what I said. It's rather clear to me what happened. But there is no need to get into any of that again. I've said what I had to say.
  
  I can also assure you Odrade, that many people reading this same thread would feel the very same way that Quandry and I felt. Guaranteed.
  
  On that note, I hope there are no hard feelings. I respect the right to disagree.
  
  And While it is true that I have only posted on this site a few times, there are other similar sites where I am much more active. I know how it works.
  
  See you both around.
  
  A hui hou,
  
  Vince
• 
  75

  I ran them off !

  by oldflame in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the witnesses came to my complex today, this time it was two very good looking women.

  i walked up to them and calmly said that this is the second warning that they were trespassing on my property and that no jehovah's witnesses are aloud on this property knocking on doors.

  i have a tenant who is a jw and this is fine with me and they are aloud to come and visit her but i do not allow them to bother my tenants as they all prefer they stay away anyways.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Vinny

  Odrade says:... "nah, nevermind, I wouldn't want to be accused of being a self-stroking, egotistical, macho, sadistic, rude, classless, self-flattering, boasting, bad ass, tough guy, power-tripping redneck madwoman."
  
  
  ***It's too late Odrade, sorry. You've earned it already.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ***No sweetie-pie. My initial argument was simply that I agreed with Quandry. Read it, it was very short, sweet and to the point. I felt that oldflame was on some power trip and also liked patting himself on the back. Which I still believe by the way. Now, it was only AFTER you and Concerned decided to press the issue further and come to TRY to save poor oldfire from his OWN fire, by watering down what he actually said, did some of the more colorful adjectives come into play. So basically, to whatever degree you believe this has thread degenerated, you can both thank yourselves. : )
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  .......................................................................
  
  ........................................................................
  
  
  Yep folks that would be nothing. Then, though we get no specific answers to those points asked directly of him, we do get this fine gem!