i used a bigger word than dunscot......
d0rky,
I only count 1,184 letters, I think you missed a Y near the end. I could be wrong, it's been months since I've had to spell that word.
...I didn't feel like writing the longest word, which has 1,909 letters instead of the measly 1,185 written above. :)
i used a bigger word than dunscot......
Discrimination? Ugly? I have to disagree with you, Seeker.
From what I've seen, you agree with the vast majority of posters whose only problem with Duns (apart from being a JW) is that he is so "over the top" with his language. He tries so hard to use extra-big words that he often makes no point at all. Pointing this out, or challenging his arguments is not "anti-intellectualism."
Being in a "technical" field is no excuse. Many of us work in technical fields, but save the jargon for our colleagues. (I work in the computer industry, and we probably have more acronyms than any other. I have a 1000-page book of networking acronyms and their meanings.) It really has nothing to do with choosing appropriate words, regardless of length, but rather with choosing often inappropriate words BECAUSE of their length.
Most of us have no problem with anyone who challenges us to expand our horizons--linguistically or otherwise--but most of us think that Duns' agenda goes beyond that.
But if we just make fun of him for his 'high falutin' words', it becomes a form of discrimination -- attacking the intellectuals. After all the anti-intellectualism of the WTS, you'd think we could tolerate even pretentious-sounding intellectuals.
America... glorifies the dumb, and looks down on the intelligent. "Book learning" is considered wrong, and plain, uneducated common sense is the Yankee ideal. Intellectuals getting their comeuppance is a long-standing theme in our stories. Well, I'm sick of it, and I hate to see such ugliness here as well.
Hmmm
being an isolated, provincial american, i've learned all i know about the land down under by watching crocodile dundee.
these are the conclusions i've reached:.
there are roughly 1,000,000 kangaroos in australia.. there are roughly 100,000 aborigines in australia.. there are roughly 10,000 non-aboriginal australians in australia.. of the 10,000, roughly 8,000 are lifeguards or surfers.. of the 2,000 remaining, probably 200 are/were jws.. of those 200, roughly 20 are now ex-jw "apostates".
Being an isolated, provincial American, I've learned all I know about the land Down Under by watching Crocodile Dundee. These are the conclusions I've reached:
There are roughly 1,000,000 kangaroos in Australia.
There are roughly 100,000 aborigines in Australia.
There are roughly 10,000 non-aboriginal Australians in Australia.
Of the 10,000, roughly 8,000 are lifeguards or surfers.
Of the 2,000 remaining, probably 200 are/were JWs.
Of those 200, roughly 20 are now Ex-JW "apostates"
Of those 20, 19 post on this DB.
Hence my question: Why so many Aussies on the boards? Is Australia a hotbed of apostasy? Is it just a coinkidink, or is my pain medication kicking in again?
Hmmm
i used a bigger word than dunscot......
Men who write big words are doing it to hide the fact that they have a small pencil. (Romans 69:86)
Hey! I resemble that remark!
i used a bigger word than dunscot......
pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis
and now I've used a word bigger than messenger
dear wonderful folks of j-w.com,.
the other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay.
it seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.. 1) s verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.
Hoping I don't regret this:
I don't accept the original syllogism [carpe diem].
"2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition"
I'm not sure I'd accept anybody's verbal claims about anything [quid pro quo]. I'm not talking about innate sexual disposition, or religious inclinations, but about our inability to really KNOW [tyrannosaurus rex] our own motives. What about the person who says that they're innately straight, then in their twenties, realizes that they are gay? What about the person who says they were "called" [habeus corpus] by God at an early age, then becomes agnostic or atheist? I would accept a rewording of the theory, but that would kill [proclivitus] the discussion:
"2) We can believe THAT S BELIEVES any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition/religious inclination"
[ergo]
3) We can believe THAT S BELIEVES yadda yadda yadda.
Hmmm [trying to match Duns' habit of sprinkling latin phrases thoughout his posts]
let's discuss solutions for a second regarding the pedophile issues.. how do you feel the society should handle things?.
should the society be entitled to 'ecclesiatic privilege' as are other religions?.
should such a loophole be allowed when it involves protecting children?.
It has been argued that, legally, JWs have to be given the same right of ecclesiastic privilege that all other religions enjoy. I think that if such a "father confessor" relationship is not part of JW teachings, then JWs shouldn't just inherit it from Catholics.
I've always ASSUMED that the reason the Catholic Church enjoyed ecclesiastimentary privilege was because of their teaching that confessing to a priest could lead to forgiveness. Since one's eternal soul being damned forever is more important than a few years spent in jail, it could be argued that a person must have an incentive to confess ANYTHING to his priest. Let's face it, twenty years in the brig NOW can be much more compelling than the possibility of maybe roasting forever when we die.
I don't really like it, (mainly because it cracks me up that you can gun down a little old lady, confess to a 24-year-old kid fresh out of seminary school who became a priest to battle his homosexual tendencies*, say ten Hail Marys, and POOF! you're forgiven) still, it seems to me to be a Catholic thing. I understand governments giving that protection, but it doesn't follow that EVERY religion should enjoy the same ecclesiasticism privilege, if it's not part of the tenets of that particular faith.
Let's say Mormons convince the US government that polygamy is an integral part of their belief system. If the US respects that belief for Mormons, do they also have to allow Baptists, JWs, and others to have multiple wives? I think the government can say "we're going to respect teachings that are fundamental to your faith, and sometimes make exceptions to our secular laws," without having to make that same exception to other religions that don't share that fundamental belief. If so, then probably nobody but Catholics should have the ecclesiastilogical privilege. Nobody but Mormons should be allowed to practice polygamy, etc...
That being the case (maybe), I agree with the poster who said that pedophilia is a secular CRIME in addition to a moral SIN. If JW elders want to address the sin side by DF, reproof, or elevation to PO, I don't really care; the CRIME of molesting a child should not go unpunished--if for no other reason, to protect society.
Then again, I could be wrong in my assumption of why the whole ecclesiassively** privileged thingie is respected by US judicial systems, which might make the whole post moot.
Hmmm
*Nothing against homosexuals--or even Catholics--I was just being clever, and looking for a way to make that long sentence even longer.
**I just had two wisdom teeth pulled and am on medication. That word "ecclesiastic" just doesn't look right to me, so I'm trying different permutations to cover my bases.
it was awesome!
i had to talk my wife into going to see it, and now she wants to see it again!.
slayer
AAAgh! (Charlton Heston beats the ground) AAgh! The fools ! Damn you!Daamn You all to Hell! AARRRGHHH!
Englishman and all,
I'm not going to give away a plot point, but some might consider this a spoiler so scrollrealfast past this post if you don't want to see it.
Charlton Heston does a cameo in this movie and delivers the same line almost exactly as in the original. I started cracking up when I heard it, but I don't think most of the audience recognized it.
Hmmm
this is the story.
i have been operating a pay-day loan business for almost 2 years now.
i started out in business with a brother who passed away almost a year ago.
I feel a bit queezy about this type of business, as well, but I'm going to stick to the technical advice.
Get a lawyer and the FBI involved (especially if anybody was out of state, but using the mail system is still grounds to get the Feds involved). Data recovery services can retrieve much data from a deleted hard drive, even if it has been over-written up to seven times (but not 77 times--get it?--a little biblical humor.)
Hmmm,
I slay me!
call me a neopositivist, a semi-verificationist or semi-falsificationist, but the claims made by "silentlambs" reminds me of the shakespearean line that was quoted in the creator book published by the wtbts.
that is, the contentions of silentlambs seem like much "sound and fury" that in truth signify nothing.
i am of course referring to the supposed dateline show and the claims made about some members of the gb of jehovah's witnesses.
Isis,
Thank you for sharing. You'll find many friends and supporters on this board. Just don't let those still blinded to "the truth about the truth" get you down. Many of them will be here next year--as exJWs.
Hmmm
