Depends on the audience... women 35 to 45 go crazy on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is6gtilerPk
and
as usual there's a lot of serious shizzle being discussed on here .
i can only cope with so much serious , so here's something that's really not .
as some of you know l am getting married soon and organising the evening bash .
Depends on the audience... women 35 to 45 go crazy on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is6gtilerPk
and
watching in on my wife's zoom meeting last night, there was an item about discipline is love.
they played a 'caleb' animated cartoon and then the instructions were 'if possible, ask selected young children' several questions.. it seems however, that there are no children in my wife's current congregation so the questions were all answered by retired brothers and sisters.
the congregation mainly consists of elderly people (like us) and the few of childbearing age seem not interested in having children.
I attended two funeral in two different areas not too long ago and did notice the same thing: Not many young parents with kids. This can be explained by the fact that many JWs couple chose not to have children from the last two generations have left.
I wouldn't be surprised that the numbers of this religion would be cut down in half in the next 20 years.
i have been hearing the cult is upset that this video leaked and is trying to remove it off the net.
lol are they really that stupid?
but if anyone has a link to the video i would love to see it.
Vienne, you are correct in saying that the watchtower has rights (copyrights) and very often, is protected by that law. However, laws are not perfect and can, at times, cause victims due to by-product/side effects.
This is what’s happening with the Watchtower. Copyright laws were made to ensure that authors would benefit from their work and protect it against miss appropriation (people claiming the works of others as their own). Members of this group have absolutely no problem with this. We are only interested in the “Fair use” provision where law makers tried to preserve free speech. That is, content can be reproduced so long as it is for criticism or parody.
In our case, there is plenty of material that the JWs have produced over the years that they are ashamed of. For us, the very act of reproducing the content and presenting it to active members is a commentary in and of itself: Are you proud or even agree with what your religion has produced here?
We very well understand that the majority of JWs will ignore such works if additional comments are made by a third party. And yet, this is the type of thing that is needed to protect the critics against WT’s lawyers.
Probably the best example I can think of is watchtowerquotes.org, a site that died a long time ago. Back in the days, that site would present watchtower quotes, in their full context, without any commentary. As a JW, I couldn’t find anything wrong about it as there was no apostate comments to be found anywhere on the site. So, I read the quotes, which in turn, guided my studies about my own religion and helped me understand a great deal about it.
The watchtower, ashamed by the
content the site, sued the site owner for 100k and successfully shut it down.
To this day, I believe that the very selection of quotes in and of themselves could
have been considered a commentary, but who has the money to fight watchtower’s lawyers?
The point is that the watchtower had used
a legitimate law to shut down a critic that should have been protected by the
fair use provision of the very same law.
i was talking to an ex-jw.
not been out as long as i have.. cut a long story short, i came to realise that i can no longer be bothered to debate jws if (on the rare occasion), i have encountered them.. i think that because i am somewhere circling a nihilistic atheist it seems pointless.
i just don't have the energy because i rarely even think about jw related garbage.
It really depends on who you debate with, why you debate and the mutual respect you show one another.
For instance, one evening, I was talking about the steadfast faith of my mother in law who refused blood transfusion despite this putting her in greater risk. The doctor had evaluated this at 2% higher rate of failure and thereby, possible death.
My ant’s response was that there were no risks to begin with and that the doctor was inadequate. I tried to reason with her that the doctor had been referred by the Hospital Liaison Comity (HLC), that they had stayed informed every step of the way and that there was indeed an risk increase due to refusing blood.
My ant argued and argued, questioning my faith and motives for layout out the facts while all I wanted to say is:
Who has greater faith? The one who does something knowing it is totally safe or the one that does an action accepting the risks?
Somehow, she couldn’t see things from that angle and continued arguing.
Moral of the story? Some people are not worth your time.
… and the dude's black.
xd.
no, it's not a joke, lol.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=balig2jw7sa.
We have a similar situation in Quebec where one of our most well known celebrity is black, Normand Brathwaite. Brathwaite has been vocal in the past about how Quebec is not racist. Sure, there are racist people, but overall, as a province, no. One of the example he used is how he travels the world with his wife who happens to be white. Europe, Mexico, Haiti, etc. The place where he feels no judgement about being with a white women is back home in Quebec. Also, he's been part of the annual National Festivities (Quebec's Day) for 10+ years. How could Quebec be racist when the day dedicated to it had him and other people from different races at the center stage?
Response of the left? He's a house nigger - I actually heard this once in an interview. The kind of black that accepts anything from the white and works against his brothers.
Now, who's racist? People who don't see color, who only see Normand for the talented individual that he is (Actor, comedian, Musician, producer, animator), or the people who bring it all down to Normand being a suck up, some sort of a sell out?
Ridiculous.
yesterday, while having a smoke outside my house, i saw the google street view car drive by.
so here i am, wondering when this picture will make it to the web and when a jw sees it.
even if they blur the face, i bet it will be really easy to make out who's smokin' outside.
Well, I think I'll stop smoking on a regular basis based on financial concerns. I don't like cigarettes as I don't like to inhale. Cigars are much stronger and make a good effect when you don't inhale. But I don't like cheep cigars either. I got hooked up when my wife came back from cuba with a few of those. So, I'm specifically hooked up on cuban cigars, which are expensive. Like, a "small car payment" expensive. I think its about time I stop and put some monney aside. Besides, it will be better for my health anyways.
yesterday, while having a smoke outside my house, i saw the google street view car drive by.
so here i am, wondering when this picture will make it to the web and when a jw sees it.
even if they blur the face, i bet it will be really easy to make out who's smokin' outside.
SL how do you not know that one of the elders in your hall knows that you post here
I use an pseudonym and purposefully try to be vague enough. But if I was too paranoid, I wouldn't write on this board at all!
yesterday, while having a smoke outside my house, i saw the google street view car drive by.
so here i am, wondering when this picture will make it to the web and when a jw sees it.
even if they blur the face, i bet it will be really easy to make out who's smokin' outside.
"the stink of cigars was so too overwhelming"
That's why I don't smoke inside and was enjoying the spring when that google car drove right by me.
yesterday, while having a smoke outside my house, i saw the google street view car drive by.
so here i am, wondering when this picture will make it to the web and when a jw sees it.
even if they blur the face, i bet it will be really easy to make out who's smokin' outside.
Rocketman123: I smoke cigars and don't inhale. Sure, its not good, but statistically speaking, it isn't as bad as you'd think. I actually took the time to research this before I started
yesterday, while having a smoke outside my house, i saw the google street view car drive by.
so here i am, wondering when this picture will make it to the web and when a jw sees it.
even if they blur the face, i bet it will be really easy to make out who's smokin' outside.