His Honor isn't letting Spinks off the hook. Finally the JW weasel agrees with the deficiencies of the JW procedures.
oppostate
JoinedPosts by oppostate
-
-
-
-
-
-
oppostate
The quip about the Australian Branch having more experience than some of the Gobbering Body members and being able to make up their minds on what procedures should be followed is a definite put down of the GB and would make a great video clip!
Take that Geoffrey Jackson! I wish you'd been able to address how Mr. Spinks' just threw the GB under the bus and positioned the Branch above the GB and also negated the Branch's need to be in absolute compliance with all directives from the GB.
-
-
-
oppostate
Spinks doesn't know how to explain the "lands" that are mentioned in the yearbooks. He doesn't know, he can't explain it he says because he didn't write it! And he's in the Branch? -
-
-
oppostate
Wheewww! Spinks just put down the GB saying some of the members of the Australian Branch have more experience in the Scriptures than members of the GB and that they don't need guidance from the GB to publish guidelines. What an F'ing liar! -
-
-
oppostate
WT lawyer is a lying sack of $h!t. Of course a member of the Gobbering Body would be helpful to the Royal Commission. They're the ones that the WT holds up as being "the Channel" for all guidance, and directives that come from them are supposed to be followed uniformly in all Branches and local congregations. What a tool that lawyer is! -
-
-
oppostate
The WT lawyer is throwing the Australian Branch under the bus saying they have a lot of leeway in the procedures. -
-
-
oppostate
WT lawyer says Mr. Jackson's is only involved in the translation of matters. Whuh? -
-
-
oppostate
Woohoo! Angus is telling His Honor about Geoffrey Jackson!
-
-
-
-
35
Has the WT ever said it's okay to steak rare?
by neverendingjourney ini'm revisiting an old topic here, but this was a subject of much confusion for me when i was still a witness.
i went to a spanish congregation in the u.s. and it seemed to be taken for granted by most that you needed to cook beef thoroughly to "get rid" of the blood.
i was surprised when i learned that folks in the english speaking hall would order a steak medium-rare and think nothing of it.. it wasn't until after i left the witnesses that it started to occur to me that if the red fluid that was present when you'd cut the beef was blood, cooking it thoroughly wouldn't get rid of it, it'd just cook it and transform it into another color.
-
-
oppostate
I never liked a rare or medium rare after articles about ecoli and nastiness about meat.
But I do remember one talk where a brother went into this saying that the juices from meat aren't really flowing blood as you would consider it in the veins and arteries and if you properly bled the meat you would still have juices left in the muscle tissue.
I guess the consideration is that when an animal is killed for food and all reasonable measures are taken to bleed it properly then it's okay to eat eve if there's residual amounts of blood still left in the meat.
