https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joehewofiba.
is this supposed to placate the ones who have been recently fired?
is this a sign of the aging jw leadership?
Where did this video originate from?
Hilarious that the interviewer pre-emptively referred to sharpening the 'spiritual countenance'TM...perhaps knowing that these worn out sadsacks, poor ol' buggers, physical countenance left a helluvalot to be desired. Lol @ Sparrowdown #wasted life!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joehewofiba.
is this supposed to placate the ones who have been recently fired?
is this a sign of the aging jw leadership?
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
I'm not bein' funny or anythin' like, but Simon, have you not noticed that the type of shocked you describe is pretty much standard these days? Most people presumably yawned and went to bed after the Scientology expose. Doesn't mean we should measure it as insignificant, this is people's lives after all.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Right, I'm gonna get Krishnan Guru-Murphy all over this shit like a rash. Have a hat you can eat Simon?
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
Better still, run the whole thing past someone unconnected with the cult, run it up their flagpole and see if they salute it?
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
If we're going to make a case for something then thrashing out the arguments for and against is valuable and highlights possible weaknesses or objections that others may come up with. Better to have answers prepared in advance, no?
But perhaps, just perhaps, think it possible that you are wrong (or going about this the wrong way)
Why not a start a new thread entitled "New CO directive is insignificant in the scheme of things" and see if anyone agrees?
in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?
)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.
wow.
I really can't be arsed to put forward an intelligent line of reasoning (blame rum, besides many have tried and been ignored or quotes cherrypicked) but for the love of...whatever...Simon...you clearly don't give a shit about this issue so can't you do everyone a favour and stfu? I don’t comment much, but you have even managed to get on my miniscule mammaries with your refusal to recognise what the issue is. Peace out and let people who DO care have their say unhindered. Or not. Your forum. Whatevs.
