Posts by jws

everyone is somehow connected to a celebrity, with that wondeful six degrees of separation.. for me, my aunt's(by marriage), first cousin is ally sheedy.. how are you related?

jws

RubyTuesday wrote:

I'm related to General Custard (not that he was a celebrity)Maybe thats why I make bad choices..hehe.

Small typo. Here I thought you were related to some owner of a frozen custard shop who called himself "General Custard".

Now the posts about Custer make more sense...

38

six degrees of separation..claim to fame!

by asortafairytale in

jw
friends

.

everyone is somehow connected to a celebrity, with that wondeful six degrees of separation.. for me, my aunt's(by marriage), first cousin is ally sheedy.. how are you related?

jws

Guy I know has a last name of Bono. People always ask him whether he's related to Sonny Bonow, which he isn't. The ironic thing is, he is a distant cousin of Cher.

Efram Zimbalist Jr. showed up to my dad's uncle's funeral years ago. Supposedly we're related, but nobody seems to remember how. I'm also related to some guy through marriage that (though white) played a lot of native americans in TV shows in the 70's - forget his name, but my dad used to be able to point him out.

A friend of mine's cousin is Max Baer (aka, Jethro Clampett). Another friend's cousin is Molly Ringwald.

With 'asortafairytale' s conection to Ally Sheedy and mine to Molly Ringwald, we could have a six-degrees of seperation Breakfast Club. Anyone out there connected to Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall, or Emilio Estevez?

33

I AM SAD AND NEED SUPPORT

by Scarlet in

jw
friends

my family has decided to shun me.

last week my brother and my husband got in a heated debate and finally my brother asked him why he doesn't believe in the jw's and he said because there religion is based on a lie.

well my parents found out and now have decided the best thing to do is shun me.

jws

I'm so sorry to hear about that. I'm glad to hear about your sister and surprised. Most JWs would pull out the 'bodily training is beneficial for little' scripture and cancel her gym membership if it meant they could justify something like keeping you two apart. I don't know the exact situation, but maybe that is cause for some hope.

JWs believe they are right, we know they aren't. They're both stubborn positions (though in this case, we are right). I find the best way in dealing with my JW family (and allowing them to deal with me) is the agreement not to discuss religion. If pinned, say yes, you do have some problems with the JWs, but be unspecific. Maybe even warn them that you'd rather not discuss it because it may shake their faith too and you care for them not to do that. (Since my door-knocking days ended, I don't really try to convince people their religions are wrong - except for JWs).

Good luck I hope it turns out OK. But don't antagonize. And beware. Your sister still has at least 3 years under their roof. Make sure she doesn't change her feelings.

44

Stupid drunk drivers......

by Jesus Christ in

jw
friends

my house is at the end of a fairly busy street that dead ends in our front yard and then takes up again a few houses down.

i was trying to set up some email stuff for a client tonight around 10:30 when i heard some police sirens.

i stood up and looked out my window to see a pair of headlights quickly coming towards my house with the police behind them.

jws

jw's you certainly use a lot of words to justify drinking and driving.It's wrong and you know it.

And I'm still waiting for a good rebuttal. I've raised several issues which you've failed to comment on, except:

Saying how some people play darts better when drinking is laughable. Give me a break. No comparision.

Didn't say it was. Said it wasn't a reaction-type sport, and driving does require reaction. Go reread it. It was in response to a comparison of driving to hitting a 95-MPH fastball. Which, although it is a reaction-type sport, is also quite different from driving. In driving, you don't try to hit things. But at least a thought and comparison was made and I get what he was trying to say and give him points for it.

Many people will make things black and white - that alcohol can only impair you. Yet I have observed people get better at billiards and darts after drinking. And I'm not the only one to observe that about these people. So it would seem in some people, skills (and I'm not saying all skills), but some skills do improve with alcohol. But that goes against a black & white view. An old roomate of mine would shoot pool and the game would be over after he'd take about 5-6 turns. He'd get extremely drunk (don't remember it the next day drunk) and clear tables in 2-3 turns. I'd welcome an explaination for this. Not because it relates to driving. Just that it seems alcohol doesn't always hinder skills.

Maybe we're unclear on the definition of drunk. Most people will say that's the BAL level at which you can get arrested for driving. Those same people, including police, will deem you OK to drive if you're only one point under. Can you really say things change that much with the extra point that suddenly everything shuts down?

What makes one a cold-blooded killer in the waiting and the other an innocent? At one time, Wisconsin's minmum BAL was .10 while in Illinois it was .08. Somebody reading .08 in Illinois would, by legal terms, be one of those drunks who might be better off shooting himself to save the lives of others. But if he crossed the border into Wisconsin, he would be considerate for stopping his drinking when he did.

What do you call drunk? Are you saying the legal BAL levels aren't low enough? Are you pushing for zero tolerance? BAL of 0.00? What would you define it as?

Thanks, it's always nice to have permission, you damned idiot.

Your welcome!

Your post is a textbook example of denial.

Denial of what? I simply believe (not deny) that somebody can be over the legal limit, yet be as safe as somebody under (the same somebody an officer would send on his merry way) - that everybody doesn't have the same reaction. This isn't biology in a vacuum.

Looking for Tim Zyglinski from Milwaukee

by jws in

.

anyone know the whereabouts of tim?

he was a jw, regular pioneer in the milwaukee area up until the early '80s..

jws

Anyone know the whereabouts of Tim? He was a JW, regular pioneer in the Milwaukee area up until the early '80s.

18

Harley Miller Died

by FreePeace in

jw
friends

i heard from my mom that harley miller died in california -- apparently -- today.

i understand he had gone there for a pacemaker, but died before he could get it.. he had an article in the wt or awake 10 -12 years ago.

although i didn't know him, he sounded like a pretty decent fellow.. fp

jws

Harley Miller??? Two of the greatest things about Milwaukee...

83

For mensa members only

by kelsey007 in

jw
friends

what is your iq?

?

jws

Interestingly, the ACT is scored on a scale of 1-36, not 1-32. And SAT scores aren't reported in percentile form.
Given the criteria you established on the subject, sure sounds like bragging to me.

I seem to remember ACT as being several categories. I got a perfect score on the math and could have sworn that was 40 questions. But I think the other sections had different numbers of questions. That was in '83 . Could it be that the number of questions have changed over the years? I also remember sending away for the statistics on my SAT results. Those did tell me what percentile I ranked in for verbal and math. I don't doubt those statements. Maybe he made a mistake on the amount of questions.

I myself checked on Mensa membership requirements once and found my SAT scores would qualify me. That was probably at least 6 years ago, but never had that much of an ambition to join, nor pay dues.

If I ever join, the main reason for joining would be to validate my intelligence. I wouldn't act superior. OK, I might be a smart ass to my friends about it once in a while.

But truthfully, one of the main reasons I can think of to join is the possible example to my JW family members. They probably believe I am being duped by "apostate reasoning".

I think that having that status symbol of being a MENSA member says you are very smart. Maybe it would turn a light on in their heads. Maybe they'd think, hey, maybe I shouldn't discredit his reasons for leaving the JWs. Maybe I should listen to what he has to say. After all, he's a MENSA member. He should be smart enough to examine the evidence without being duped.

I honestly don't think being a MENSA member says you are well-rounded in your intelligence. Only good at the tests. I personally didn't do so well on the verbal part of the SAT, but the math more than made up for it. So my skills are lopsided, but it's the total score that earned me qualification for MENSA. And I know many people are much smarter than me or much more adept in different fields. So I personally don't think membership in MENSA proves anything. But it still impresses a lot of those pea-brained people out there! - and another to emphasize I'm just kidding.

44

Stupid drunk drivers......

by Jesus Christ in

jw
friends

my house is at the end of a fairly busy street that dead ends in our front yard and then takes up again a few houses down.

i was trying to set up some email stuff for a client tonight around 10:30 when i heard some police sirens.

i stood up and looked out my window to see a pair of headlights quickly coming towards my house with the police behind them.

jws

All I can say is I hope they bust your ass and throw you in jail before you kill someone. Maybe you'll learn that way.

My ass has been busted once - over 10 years ago and I no longer drive when I'm even near intoxicated, but I do not avoid driving entirely if I've had a drink. I'm NOT saying alcohol doesn't affect people and that, no matter how much you've had to drink, you're safe to drive. What I am saying is that line of impairment/intoxication is different based on many factors and that it does not necessarily match with the legal definition of simply measuring BAL.

Let's say you're given a simulation test to measure when you are no longer capable of driving and they measure your BAL. Do you think, under various circumstances, that line is going to be reached at different BAL levels? Let's say one day you're wide awake and alert. On another you've been up all day and you're exhausted. And in another test, you're exhausted and sick. You're going to hit that "not OK to drive" level at different BAL levels. And other people who may be younger and fitter may hit those marks at different points than you, under the same conditions. At least that's my contention. If you disagree, you'll never see what I'm saying.

But, let's say hypothetically, you hit it at .11 on your good day, .09 when you're tired, and .08 when you're tired and sick. If law enforcement and politicians are going to do these kinds of tests to see what the legal limit should be, what number are they going to choose? .08 - you have to go with the minimum. You don't want to set it at .10 because sometimes people are intoxicated at .08. Yet on the good day, bright and alert, you weren't unsafe until you hit .11, but the legal setting for "intoxicated" for your case is now set at .08. Any legal definition has to be near the minimum to catch all cases, not a maximum or even an average. And, some people are going to be OK over that minimum and some people are going to be impaired when they hit the minimum.

What I'm saying is the legal definition is not so cut-and-dried. Some people can be "a bit" over the minimum and be OK and some people can probably be under and still be intoxicated. And I do believe "a bit". When we start getting into higher BAL levels, the impairment goes up exponentially and there's no doubt you're drunk and impaired. I'm not saying otherwise.

Sure this is a controversial viewpoint. Most people would rather see things in black and white and have thier villians clearly defined for them and not really think about other factors or fairness. These are the same people who would probably sentence a lukemia patient growing pot to ease their suffering the same sentence as a drug dealer growing it to sell. No thinking outside the box.

You can fling your curses at me. Go ahead. At least Jesus Christ (the poster here, not THE Jesus) came back with a thoughtful response, indicating others think only in the right/wrong world and aren't thinking beyond hurtling insults and wishes for my demise.

The only thing I'm saying is that not everybody hits that "impaired/intoxicated" mark at the same BAL and some people can be above the legal definition and be equally qualified to drive as somebody below that legal definition. Yet one is a "drunk driver" and the other is not. Am I the only one that agrees with this statement?

As for batting, I never tried that after drinking. Granted, these aren't reaction-time sports, but I have seen people get a LOT better at billiards and darts when they're drunk than before they started drinking. I've also have seen some people get better at reaction-time video games. As I recall, the people who got better at video games were not REAL drunk, only a little and quite probably over the legal limit. But after a certain point, the more they drank, their play deteriorated greatly.

And I suspect this is true of many DWI accidents and those who cause them. You have to worry a lot more about the guy who's double the legal limit than the guy who's teetering at it. And he's not double the danger, the more you drink the danger goes up exponentially. I'm only arguing the strict demarcation line that claims everyone's body is equal and that above it you are not fit to drive, but somebody else one point under is.

If you're going to say people shouldn't be driving after even one beer because their reaction time is diminished, then push for zero tolerance. And while you're at it, banish cell-phone use in cars. Take drivers licenses away from people who start becoming forgetful. Force more frequent eye tests for elderly drivers. Ban CBs, radios, CDs, and tapes along with headphones if you're using them. Ban passengers from carrying on a conversation in a car. Ban people from driving after a breakup with their girlfriend/boyfriend or if they just had a fight with their wife/husband. Ban people from driving after a big meal because they're blood is processing food and making them sleepier. All of these things distract drivers and diminish response time and could kill a kid who runs out in front of you. Yet the only things I know of being addressed are alcohol, cell-phones, and headphones (never mind the headphones are off, but the music is so loud it can be heard 3 blocks away and they STILL can't hear an ambulance).