Posts by Jourles

I just wanted to mention one other thing - If ANYTHING were to happen in the form of "net-neutrality," it would likely be some type of metered access. Many of us have now what are called "unlimited" plans. They're really not unlimited in the true sense of the word, but rather, your ISP will probably cap your use once you hit a certain gigabyte ceiling. You might be allowed 10GB's per month before your ISP limits your download speeds or shuts you down. My company does it, so does the rest. It's especially important to cap insane users over a wireless network. Wireless is a more precious resource and is way more limited than a hardwired connection through either DSL, cable, or fiber. But getting back to metered access - what I mean is that some ISP's may begin charging their customers tiered prices for certain amounts of bandwidth usage. For example:

Less than 1GB downloaded - $20

1GB-5GB downloaded - $30

5GB-10GB downloaded - $40

etc

This is exactly what we may see in the coming future. And it is all due to P2P sharing and streaming video services. We will not see ordinary sites being blocked. All those millions of websites(besides the couple hundred mentioned in the FUD article) would become instantly useless. Do you really think the world in general would allow such a thing to happen?

7

Canadian ISPs Plan Net Censorship - THE GB'S WET DREAM COME TRUE?

by What-A-Coincidence in

jw
friends

canadian isps plan net censorship.

concerns grow that canada's plan will wipeout alt news sites and spread to u.s.. .

by mike finch.

Jourles

We're not going to see full-scale net "censorship" as indicated in the so called article above. The real net neutrality issue is about service providers trying to figure out how to provide an acceptable internet experience when P2P and streaming video is starting to choke the web. When everyone down your street starts downloading movies or tv shows to their [entertainment box] and you're just trying to read jwd, it is quite possible for you to have the site load up very slowly. This is what the ISP's are fretting about. The uproar about Comcast filtering(blocking) P2P traffic a few months ago is a perfect example of this. P2P traffic consumes by far the majority of all internet bandwidth. The capacity of the networks are not keeping up with the demand.

Sorry to say, but the "article" is simply FUD. My company serves as a major ISP(cellular) and nothing of that sort is remotely true.

7

STL Cardinals fans, close-up pics from Detroit

by Jourles in

a buddy of mine and i went out to the cardinals/tigers game yesterday.

i bought my tickets through ebay and found front row tix right behind the cardinals bullpen.

of course, it was more than ideal for photographs.. .

Jourles

They gave up an earlier run with a bases loaded walk as well. I don't know why they didn't put Russ Springer in instead of Franklin. They were ahead until he gave up that HR.

7

STL Cardinals fans, close-up pics from Detroit

by Jourles in

a buddy of mine and i went out to the cardinals/tigers game yesterday.

i bought my tickets through ebay and found front row tix right behind the cardinals bullpen.

of course, it was more than ideal for photographs.. .

Jourles

A buddy of mine and I went out to the Cardinals/Tigers game yesterday. I bought my tickets through Ebay and found front row tix right behind the Cardinals bullpen. Of course, it was more than ideal for photographs. Cubs fans can move along - there isn't anything you want to see here.

50

Serena Williams J W quote today

by BluesBrother in

serena.

"williams: ``i obviously am excited to see [ barack] obama out there doing his thing, but i'm a [jehovah's] witness, so i don't get involved in politics.

we stay neutral.

Jourles

I suppose the 'sisters' didn't get the memo about the UN as well....

"I feel that what I do in tennis isn't really political," Venus said after her 7-6 (5), 6-1 win over British wild-card entry Naomi Cavaday on Tuesday. The work she does for UNESCO and other agencies is about helping people, she said. "I don't see it as political. I don't vote."

I have no idea why some folks here would want them to stop saying/doing these things. These two sisters alone can generate more publicity than any or all of us combined. The WTS is in a Catch-22 with them. If they let them be, more and more 'worldly' people will begin to think that jw's are just like anyone else in the world. Afterall, they participate in the Olympics, do nude photo shoots, date those who are obviously non-jws, etc etc etc. We all know that if we were just a regular joe in the KH and were caught doing anything remotely similar to those actions, we would be df'd or automatically da'd. If the WTS was to come out and disavow their actions or df them, a big whirlwind of anger and "WTF's?" would hit them from all corners from their fans. In the stream of time where the WTS is now, the last thing they want to appear to be cast as is a huge fuddy-duddy -- banning anything that the world thinks is normal. The more mainstream they appear to be, the better. External growth requires this. The Williams sisters just happen to be helping this part along, while at the same time shooting themselves in the foot by voicing such nonsense.

It really is a clusterf**k situation for both parties all around. The WTS appears to be offering a double-standard, and the sisters look like whackjobs when they talk like this.

50

New book: Keep Yourselves In God's Love: Chapter and appendix on blood

by truthseeker in

jw
friends

here is a scan of the chapter on do you value life as god does?.

.

Jourles

The single most important reasoning you can point out to a jw is regarding these passages:

"...Out of respect for God's law, they also do not accept the four primary components of blood: red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma.
11 Today, through further processing, these components are often broken down into fractions that are used in a variety of ways. Could a Christian accept such fractions? Does he view them as "blood"?"

The same reasoning that the WTS provides for "fractions" can also be used regarding the "four primary components" as well. Further, they state:

"...They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken."

This is the key. How is it determined(who determined this? WTS? Medical field?) which part of the blood, component or fraction, represents the life of the creature? Because I can pretty much guarantee that if you were to remove any specific component, or even a very minor fraction from the bloodstream for that matter, you're going to die. EVERY fraction spoken of in this article is necessary for humans to live. The way the WTS presents it, a "fraction" such as hemoglobin is acceptable because it would no longer represent life once fractionated from red blood cells. But let's say you removed all hemoglobin from your body - what is going to happen? Will not your life end suddenly? Of course it will! The WTS will never address this argument in print. They pretend to make it appear as if whatever is acceptable is something your body can do without.

230

"Why does America always bomb other countries?", my son asked tonight.

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

first of all i do not want to turn this into an american bashing thread, that is not my intention at all.. i would like to hear americans opinions as to what my thirteen year old son asked me tonight.. on the way back from swimming tonight my two sons (13 and 11) and myself started talking about wars.

my 11 year old was the first to bring it up talking about wwi & ww2.

we had an interesting conversation about it, then the subject got onto nuclear bombs.

Jourles

I am going to remember this thread and if Iran manages to kill 5.5 million Israelis some day I'm going to ask you how you feel about your position in 2008 and whether you think mocking McCain for his bad joke was pretty insignificant.

Lol. We'll just see who attacks who first... I think we can all pretty much agree(even if you won't admit it publically) that Iran will not be attacking anyone in the near future. But I can think of two countries that will attack Iran in the near future.

230

"Why does America always bomb other countries?", my son asked tonight.

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

first of all i do not want to turn this into an american bashing thread, that is not my intention at all.. i would like to hear americans opinions as to what my thirteen year old son asked me tonight.. on the way back from swimming tonight my two sons (13 and 11) and myself started talking about wars.

my 11 year old was the first to bring it up talking about wwi & ww2.

we had an interesting conversation about it, then the subject got onto nuclear bombs.

Jourles

A man is being tortured next door, you hear him screaming from the basement window. Not your house, not your problem. People like you make me ill.

I was going to ask which "war" you might have been referring to here, but there really is no need. But here's a question - How many tortured, screaming, victims of genocide in Africa does it take for US military intervention? A million? Two million? Does it matter? The answer here is obvious. First we would need to ask ourselves, "What are we going to get out of it if we intervene?" The answer to that question would be ZILCH. At least with Iraq, we now control a huge natural resource. Again, another huge double-standard staring right back at us in the face.

I'm glad people like "me" can make you ill. Because without us, you would never know when you're getting sick.

230

"Why does America always bomb other countries?", my son asked tonight.

by digderidoo in

jw
friends

first of all i do not want to turn this into an american bashing thread, that is not my intention at all.. i would like to hear americans opinions as to what my thirteen year old son asked me tonight.. on the way back from swimming tonight my two sons (13 and 11) and myself started talking about wars.

my 11 year old was the first to bring it up talking about wwi & ww2.

we had an interesting conversation about it, then the subject got onto nuclear bombs.

Jourles

"Why does America always bomb other countries?"

This is only my opinion and how I view America/The World. Instead of trying to write an essay, I'll merely cascade down what I think are the basic drivers of why we are at where we are today.

Many Americans no longer show much backbone as they did in earlier 'War' decades (i.e 60's & 70's)
Americans are so caught up in living better lives than everyone else.
In order to maintain our lifestyles, we need lots of money and good credit scores.
By demonstrating against or pissing off the government(violating the patriot act?), we are scared that we might end up in jail or prison.
If we're in jail, we cannot work. If we cannot work, we cannot pay our bills. If we cannot pay our bills, our credit becomes screwed. If our credit becomes screwed, everything in our lives for the next decade or further out costs us much more so we end up having to work more to make more money. If we die broke and in debt, we cannot leave anything for our children.
The government says the "terrorists" want to come over here to kill us and that we need to support the government in any way to protect us.
Giving "full-fledged" support to the government means that we are "patriotic."
If we disagree with our government's foreign policy, we are viewed as "unpatriotic" by our peers, friends, coworkers, relatives, and others.
If we are viewed as "unpatriotic," the "patriotic" ones automatically dismiss anything we say and chastise us for "siding with the terrorists."
By giving in to peer pressure and not wanting to be viewed as "unpatriotic," we keep our mouths shut and plod along in our lives doing nothing.
The government now expects this and only has to deal with a few "bloggers" acting out over the internet. No massive demonstrations of any real importance are encountered any longer. The "unpatriotic" ones figure, "What's the use?"
Because no one is willing to stand up to the government, those in charge can now act out on any military-backed commercial enterprise they wish. Even if this means invading and controlling another sovereign nation that did not attack us, so be it. As long as we can control another nation's natural resources, the hidden backers of those who control the military can sit back and watch their profits come in.

I really could keep rolling with these, but I'm beginning to make myself sick and depressed. The horse I backed in the present race was effectively euthanized from the word 'go.' His followers were labeled as kooks and all other forms of derogatory names by the media. But yet he was the only candidate which was firmly opposed to policing the world, maintaining a military presence across the globe, nation building(EMPIRE BUILDING), and the taking away our most basic freedoms(habeas corpus) in the name of protecting us against the "terrorists." His unmatched economic scholarship and outlook firmly pointed to the mess we are in today. He saw this financial doom and gloom scenario coming and was laughed off the stage for persistently mentioning it. I read a few days ago that McCain said that we needed to get back to the basics and follow our country's founding principles. I almost pissed my pants from laughing so much. I thought, "He just pulled out the same "kooky" statement that Ron Paul used everywhere he went."

Our country is so f**ked up politically it's not even funny anymore to make fun of it. This is serious business these days, literally. Business interests drive our "wars." Spreading "freedom and democracy" is code for "propping up governments that are friendly to Western business." Whether it be oil, gas, or any other resource - natural or otherwise - as long as we can control what helps make our country tick, Americans can continue their lavish lifestyles.(lavish compared to some others)

So to answer the previous question on why do we always bomb other countries, that's easy. We have a military juggernaut at the disposal of corportate backed finger puppets in governmental office. Just say the word and it is done. Doesn't matter the mess it puts us in or the amount of debt the country falls into. As long as the few who control these wars make their money, that's all that counts. If someone honestly thinks that we are simply trying to spread freedom and democracy in other countries, you really need to rethink that position. Because there are several "Western friendly" countries that are worse off than Iraq was under Saddam. If it's truly about F&D, then either one of two things are not quite right here. Either we have double-standards for certain other countries, or we just care about how much money we can make by overthrowing governments that do not give in the USA's whims. Take your pick, because those are the only two options.