I always just made it up. Sometimes I would have a "bad month" where I didn't make my time, but a month or two later I would have a "good month" to make up for it. Just so it would look realistic. But I never counted jack, I would just turn in some arbitrary numbers at the end of the month. Most of my pioneer buddies did that too, I always thought it was obvious they were making it up, but it's entirely possible I was just as transparent and it was just a matter of mutual apathy. Really that is most like. A sister would turn in a hundred hour month even though we barely saw her, and she would just say "....letter writing." and we would scoff a bit to each other and then get over it and turn in our 74 hour month thinking no one was the wiser.
JonathanH
JoinedPosts by JonathanH
-
111
How Have you Counted your time for Pioneering?
by jehu or jehonadab injust woundering how have you counted your time in field service especially if you were pioneering?.
would like to see if any of you were on the same page as i was.
with so much to do, like reading all the watchtower and awake each month and the bible reading each week.
-
-
-
41
If You Were God How Would You Prove You Existed
by Pig ini ask this because obviously everyone has different criteria, hence why we have muslims who think quran is the more than enough proof, christians who think the bible is perfect proof and atheists who believe that nothing yet has been proof enough of gods existence.. living with humans we all must have a good idea of human nature (god should certainly know) so what would you provide as proof if you were god to convince the masses of your existence?.
if you were a christian would your proof surpass that contained in the bible, would you provide less proof?.
if you are atheist would you provide a mathematical equation or a series of supernatural events that fulfill prophecies every 100 years?.
-
-
JonathanH
And what of the people that do good but don't believe in you, tec? Or perhaps the people would do a bit more good if you actually came around every once and a while. The god you describe sounds like an apathetic father. "boys will be boys, I'm going to go watch TV."
-
41
If You Were God How Would You Prove You Existed
by Pig ini ask this because obviously everyone has different criteria, hence why we have muslims who think quran is the more than enough proof, christians who think the bible is perfect proof and atheists who believe that nothing yet has been proof enough of gods existence.. living with humans we all must have a good idea of human nature (god should certainly know) so what would you provide as proof if you were god to convince the masses of your existence?.
if you were a christian would your proof surpass that contained in the bible, would you provide less proof?.
if you are atheist would you provide a mathematical equation or a series of supernatural events that fulfill prophecies every 100 years?.
-
-
JonathanH
I go with sir82's response. Proof would be a silly concept, I would either be a deist god, in which case in wouldn't matter, or if I was a theist god, I wouldn't be playing games. I would be all like "ok, peep gang, here's the deal. I have a castle on the frikkin' moon, it's up there, you can see it cause it's HUGE, here's how I made you (and this is empirically verifiable), this is what I expect of you, and why, and if you don't like it, that's cool, I will put you on a separate planet for people that don't want to chill on my planet (don't worry, the other planet is perfectly inhabitable too, and you can come back if you like mine better), and you guys can run it your way, but this is my planet and I have a castle on the moon, I am god let's start the party, if you have any questions let me know, I will personally answer all questions in person, and will have personal meetings with everyone, just don't eat from that one tree....you already did? Fuck that, I'm out, good luck figuring out dinosaur bones without me around, LOLz just kidding, that tree is fine, eat all you like, and keep your fork, there is pie.
The fact that you have to ask for proof of the existence of a being like god is a pretty good reason to think he doesn't exist. I mean this isn't a tea pot orbitting pluto, this is a massive giant purple unicorn blaring the "nyan cat" song over huge speakers running across the planet since it's inception and everybody saying "oddly enough, nobody can prove that thing is here." If it was real, it would be a question philosophers, theologians, and lay people struggled with for thousands of years.
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
That's naive. Money is power. What you're advocating is oligarchy, or even aristocracy, and claiming that as long as you have a big TV, it doesn't matter if democracy no longer exists. All you've done in the scenario is create big government, but a government that only 1% of the people have a say in. And you think people should be satisfied with that, as long as they are comfy. And assuming that once they have 99%, that is all they will want.
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
And you still haven't answered. Would it be economically healthy if the top 1% controlled 99% of the money in the US (I'm not saying they do, I'm asking if hypothetically that would be economically healthy), and what mechanism prevents the top 1% from taking a bigger piece of the over all pie.
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
That's not what I'm talking about james, I'm not talking about how wealthy and individual is, I'm talking about what % of the money in the country they control.
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
I didn't say they did, james. I asked if it would be healthy if they did. And you say you don't think they ever will, so what is the mechanism that will stop the upward flow of cash? If a man generates a million dollars of new wealth, but pockets 2 million for himself, he is still getting a bigger piece of the pie. The % of the over all wealth that he controls will continue to rise as he continues to take. And this is something we see. The top 1% controls considerably more of the nations wealth now then they did fifty years ago. So why will this trend stop, and at what point will it stop?
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
And when I say a zero sum game when it comes to % I mean that the bottom 99% can't control 70% of the nations wealth, and the top 1% control 70% of the nations wealth. It doesn't matter how much is generated, there can only be 100% at any given time. If the top gain a %, then the bottom lose that %.
So no, I am not Wrong.
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
You continue to dodge my question. Could the top 1% control 99% of the nation's wealth, and would that be considered economically healthy? Is there anything that would stop the flow of money upwards?
-
82
Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?
by Justitia Themis in...not sure if this has already been posted.
it is from a sociology professor's blog, but it is written by his friend, who manages assets for wealthy clients.. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html.
i sit in an interesting chair in the financial services industry.
-
-
JonathanH
And technically your statement "the top would have more, everybody would have more" cannot be true if talking about %s, because that is zero sum. Remember, we are talking about % of existing wealth, not generation of new wealth.
Edit: I'll be back in a bit, I've got to go to class. I'l just leave with the question "Is it possible for an unhealthy distribution of wealth to exist? And could that distribution happen through pure capitalism?"