Posts by Terra Incognita

50

How could Jesus be ruling the world since 1914 yet Satan is the ruler of the world?

by yadda yadda 2 in

jw
friends

july 2011 awake (p.5) says: the ruler of this world.

the bible states: the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.

(john 12:31; 1 john 5:19) that wicked one is satan the devil, a powerful spirit creature who is described as the ruler of the authority of the air.

Terra Incognita

Moshe: "Wow, Lars, Obves and MR Eggnogg are all in the building at the same time. Hey guys, why no do a topic, together?"

Would that not be like having three schizophrenics, who each believe they're Jesus Christ, thrown in the same room together?

86

There's someone here who shouldn't be

by mrsjones5 in

jw
friends

*i'm posting this in a public place so this person will see it, i'm not sure if they are a member of the board or not but i'm sure they're a lurker*.

dear person who knows my mother, i want you to know that i am not nor have i never been a jw.

yes as you well know i was raised in the org but i was never baptised into it.

Is this normal witness behavior?

by confusedstudent in

jw
friends

i quit my bible study a couple days ago after taking a month or two to work up the guts.

have been getting harassing emails/phone calls blah blah blah.

but i got an email today telling me that an unbelieving spouse can be "sanctified" by his believing mate.

Terra Incognita

Confusedstudent:

No need to be confused about anything. I got df'd decades ago and I can tell you that it's always been the sameYesteryear, today and forever.

I think that I've become immune to their lies; but when I heard about this "husband sanctified" by your being in the religion crap, I became ill. It was a new one on me. Please don't spend any more time than you need to associating with them.

You're in my thoughts.

126

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy in

went and saw atlas shrugged part 1 at the rave theater here in little rock friday night.

i was surprised it showed here since it had such a limited showing.. anyway i was really surprised at how well it was done on such a limited budget and a very tight and short schedule to have the whole picture done and it really followed the book very well.

i went to the 7:15 showing and the theater was packed but but not sold out.

Terra Incognita

Terry:

"Jared Diamond is a real hoot!

In his book COLLAPSE he gives 12 reasons why Society's collapse.

Take a look at Diamond's 12 reasons and tell me how many apply to the American Indian."

First, my response. Then I’ll give my opinion of whom we’re dealing with here.

Terry has absurdly conflated and confounded two very different subject matters from two very different books.

The book I cited was Guns, Germs and Steel. It deals with the subject of why PRIMITIVE HUNTER GATHERERS did not advance technologically over other societies.

Collapse , by the same author, explains why ADVANCED SOCIETIES often times collapsed. It made no reference to hunter gatherers.

So Terry tried to confuse the issue at hand by bringing in a completely different and irrelevant subject about completely different types of societies.

***

It is obvious that we’re dealing here with an ideologue who, like many other ideologues and members of our beloved former religion, simply cannot and do not even wish to understand anything outside of their mental framework.

asleif_dufansdottir :

.

· you belong to a social group which prides itself on having the only right answer to a difficult situation and mocks and belittles those who don't have similar beliefs/understandings

· this group's claims and beliefs may sound like 'common sense' to the average person at first but require extensive 'buy in' as you go deeper

· the group thrives on 'attacks' by the 'enemy'

· you wave around publications you say contain the 'truth' and the 'real answer' (tm)

· outsiders who remain unconvinced have no patience in "discussing" a topic with most group members because the group member does not really engage in honest discussion but instead rattles off "the party line" while vigorously refusing to hear one word anyone who's not a group member says, and instead mocks them for blindness and stupidity...

To which I'll add:

Name calls without reason. Post 10651.
Lacks the courage to answer the toughest question posed.

· Appears to be using "cult language" which he does not define but gladly flings at us. Example, “ You, on the other hand, seem to have no opinions that you will own. Why is that?” Post 10653.

· Does not admit to gross contradictions. Example; this comment of his, directed at me, about his mentor, " You are fatuous if you think I have any interest in defending the rantings of silly old woman who shot from the hip”. Yet he blissfully proceeds to praise her later. Post 10653.

· Claims that Ayn Rand should be respected for her achievements for the same reason we should respect a child rapist for building a magnificent skyscraper. His exact statement from post 10639, “ If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture?” Yet mindlessly contradicts himself by mocking other authors because they’re involved in a lawsuit. Needless to say, Terry the ‘sniper’ does not even bother to address himself to the basics and merits of what that author said.

· Does not admit to gross contradictions. Example; this comment of his, directed at me, about his mentor, " You are fatuous if you think I have any interest in defending the rantings of silly old woman who shot from the hip”. Yet he blissfully proceeds to praise her later. Post 10653.

· Claims that Ayn Rand should be respected for her achievements for the same reason we should respect a child rapist for building a magnificent skyscraper. His exact statement from post 10639, “ If an architect is a child molester and builds a fantastic building why should we decry the architecture?” Yet mindlessly contradicts himself by mocking other authors because they’re involved in a lawsuit. Needless to say, Terry the ‘sniper’ does not even bother to address himself to the basics and merits of what that author said.

87

Is this a forum for JW issues or a poorly designed political and celebrity site?

by Band on the Run in

it appears to me that even in the few months that i have been here there is less and less emphasis on jehovah's witnesses and anything remotely related to jws and more very poor posts about politics, foreign affairs and celebrities.

i can't omit the juvenile sex ones, which i find lacking in erotic nature.

it seems the 6th grade boys are meeting in the locker room.. the posts that involve jws have a very different tone from the drivel posted on others.

Terra Incognita

Band on the Run:

"...there is less and less emphasis on Jehovah's Witnesses and anything remotely related to JWs and more very poor posts about politics, foreign affairs and celebrities."

Well excuuuuse me missy .

Okay, IMO there should be more emphasis on JW related topics but not necessarily less on political issues.

I also agree that many posts about politics are poor, even downright pathetic. I hope you don't think I'm one of them.

"I never thought I would post here so frequently. Something keeps me coming back. As more time passes, I am appalled by the increasing drivel. Most comments have no thought behind them. Others are very thoughtful and thought provoking. I don't know how anyone keeps up their standards. Increasingly, I can not rely on any information presented here."

Can't resist coming back? I guess this forum is like peanuts. Once you've had one you can't stop.

As for the drivel-as I just mentioned-it can be very pathetic. As for relying on information, I always go to primary sources; straight to the horses mouth. I myself don't trust what any site has to say and even if I were to trust the site, it is always more authentic to go to cite those primary sources. Others just cut and paste junk from conservative sites and think tanks like the Heartland Institute. They're the ones who said that cigarrette smoking had not been scientifically proven to cause lung cancer. They were partially funded by the tobacco industry.

You have to learn how to separate the pearls from the dung pile, which can be challenging but nonetheless necessary in life; not just Internet entertainment.

126

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy in

went and saw atlas shrugged part 1 at the rave theater here in little rock friday night.

i was surprised it showed here since it had such a limited showing.. anyway i was really surprised at how well it was done on such a limited budget and a very tight and short schedule to have the whole picture done and it really followed the book very well.

i went to the 7:15 showing and the theater was packed but but not sold out.

Terra Incognita

Jared Diamond is a true intellect; unlike Ayn Rand whom you admit to be a silly ranting woman who shoots from the hips. This book provides explanation of why different cultures follow different social trajectories. It's basic premise is that it was a combination of Geography and basic social dynamics that forced certain societies to innovate technology in response to environmental pressures and conflict with each other.

True answers, Terry, are more complex than the ones most people cling to. Most people seek answers to reflect their prejudices and you are one prejudiced man. I set this book in contrast to your racist bilge.

The following is a review of the book: . In one compelling volume, the famous biologist Jared Diamond tackles the most important question of global history: Why did Europeans come to dominate the New World? . This question has been answered by others before; Diamond's idea that Europe's geography is the cause ("geographical determinism") has also been proposed before. Any student of history can drag up a case or two of this thesis. Baron Montaigne, for example, proposed that Europe's primacy stemmed from its superior government, which could be derived directly from the coolness of its climate. . The deep significance of this book is that Diamond's thesis is not simply idle speculation. He proves that the Eurasian land mass had by far the best biological resources with which to develop agricultural societies, and was thus more able to form large, coherent, and powerful social entities. .

To support this idea, Diamond introduces thorough set of well-researched data on what kinds of plants and animals are necessary to support a farming society. He investigates the biological resources available to potential farmers in all parts of the world. The people of Eurasia had access to a suite of plants and animals that provided for their needs. Potential farmers in other parts of the world didn't-- and so their fertile soil went untilled.

After establishing this strong foundation, Diamond falls into repeating ideas about the formation of large-scale societies. These ideas, while unoriginal, are still compelling, and Diamond presents them in a very clear and well-written way.

His other major original contribution comes when he discusses the diseases that helped the Old World conquer the New. Building on his earlier chapters dealing with Old-World domesticated animals, he shows that these very animals were the sources of the major plagues (such as smallpox) which virtually annihilated New World populations. The fact that Old Worlders had immunities to these diseases was a direct result of their agricultural head-start.

[<snip>]

If you are looking for a book that explains the world's history of the past 500 years, look elsewhere. Guns, Germs and Steel exhausts itself by effectively, coherently, fundamentally, definitively, and entertainingly explaining the preceeding 15,000.

I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone with an interest in world history. The scholarship is first-rate, and the thesis is incredibly significant. The technical details, while complete, are presented in a very easy to understand way, and Diamond's writing style is fun and engaging. It fully deserved the Pulitzer prize.

126

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy in

went and saw atlas shrugged part 1 at the rave theater here in little rock friday night.

i was surprised it showed here since it had such a limited showing.. anyway i was really surprised at how well it was done on such a limited budget and a very tight and short schedule to have the whole picture done and it really followed the book very well.

i went to the 7:15 showing and the theater was packed but but not sold out.

Terra Incognita

Terry; I noticed how you failed to respond to my rebuttal of your FIRST TWO points. By ignoring them completely, while treating the other points at length, you give the strong impression that you can't and are simply slinging mud at me. The very same attitude that you are displaying.

In case you didn’t have the time to respond to these points, I’m bringing them up again:

I personally don't really care about Ayn Rand's opinions of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason why YOU DO.

Her opinions (which are also those of most of her followers) about Indians, or any other persons not having rights, is relevant to the extent that:

· That they contradict her own philosophy.

· That they are followed by Objectivists who would use her rationalizations against any charge of inconsistency.

· That her opinions are actually consistent with her philosophy of Objectivism.

More importantly Terry, if you didn't care, why were you defending her position in the first place?

So I remind you once more of what you said and its being a partial citation of Ayn Rand’s statement. A statement, whose overall context, was the justification of Europeans taking land away from the Indians.

Rand's argument concerned the fact that the American Indian never bothered IMPROVING their lot in life beyond being nomadic hobos."

If you had no interest in defending her ranting, then why did you not simply admit that my reference of her statement was correct and that you simply disapproved of it? You really knew all along what she had said in its entirety.

BOTTOM LINE TERRY, YOU WERE OBVIOUSLY DEFENDING AYN RAND UNTIL I EXPOSED WHAT SHE REALLY SAID. THEN YOU CHANGED YOUR TACTIC WHEN FACED WITH INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SOFT PEDALING WHAT HER ACTUAL THOUGHTS.

126

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy in

went and saw atlas shrugged part 1 at the rave theater here in little rock friday night.

i was surprised it showed here since it had such a limited showing.. anyway i was really surprised at how well it was done on such a limited budget and a very tight and short schedule to have the whole picture done and it really followed the book very well.

i went to the 7:15 showing and the theater was packed but but not sold out.

Terra Incognita

Agonus: "Ah well. I'm too tired now. Let me gather my thoughts. I shall return in the morning. Grumble."

Agonus; I feel your agony . Why don't you write your comments on Word and then paste it into the commentary box?

55

The real story about the tea party movement

by lifeisgood in

jw
friends

i started this thread because some people are telling lies in another thread about the tea party.. i am one of the volunteers that helps arrange and put on tea party rallies in southern mississippi.

we do not have a membership roll.. we are not a political party.. we have one basic issue that we are addressing, which is: we want federal spending to be lower than federal revenues.

we do not say how this is to be achieved.. some liars on this site are claiming that the tea parties are actively pushing to achieve the balanced budget by cutting only liberal policies.

Terra Incognita

See Sharron run. Run Sharron, run!

This video captures Sharron from a different angle. Showing her backside as she briskly walks away from a reporter. He is repeatedly askimg her what she meant when she suggested armed insurrection against congress (Video shown in BizzyBee's post above.).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UxPDZCOuYA&feature=player_detailpage#t=485s

Also, this video, to impress on us the fact that Sharron Angle made similar comments repeatedly as well as repeatedly giving phony apologies for her comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU9GXil9Vm8&feature=related

Now why has Sharron Angle not been arrested for making a terrorist threat?

Nevada "Terrorist Threats" Laws
(NRS 202.448)
In this post-9/11 world, law enforcement takes any hint of terrorist activity very seriously. Consequently, any word or action you make that police believe may be related to terrorism can subject you to criminal prosecution.

Our Las Vegas criminal defense lawyers have decades of experience in successfully fighting criminal charges, often without having to go to trial at all. Scroll down to learn more about the law of terrorist threats in Nevada including possible penalties and potential defenses.

Definition

As you know, terrorism is using sabotage or violence in order to cause substantial injury or destruction to the general population. Therefore, the legal definition of "terrorist threats" in Las Vegas, Nevada, makes it unlawful to issue any threat concerning an act of terrorism with the intent to:

injure, intimidate or alarm any person, or
cause panic or civil unrest, or
extort or profit, or
interfere with the operations of or cause economic or other damage to any person or any officer, agency, board, bureau, commission, department, division or other unit of federal, state or local government

It doesn't matter whether the terrorist threat actually resulted in any harm. Merely communicating a threat with the intent to cause injury, panic, profit or destruction qualifies as criminal activity. Examples of the Nevada crime of terrorist threats include:

calling in a threat to a place of worship
sending a threatening letter to city hall
texting threats of harm to your ex-lover

Note that the Nevada crime of terrorist threats does not encompass making a bogus bomb threat. Both acts are serious felonies, but making terrorist threats carry potentially higher prison terms than making bomb threats. (NRS 202.840)

Also note that this offense is commonly called "criminal threats" rather than "terrorist threats" in California law.

126

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy in

went and saw atlas shrugged part 1 at the rave theater here in little rock friday night.

i was surprised it showed here since it had such a limited showing.. anyway i was really surprised at how well it was done on such a limited budget and a very tight and short schedule to have the whole picture done and it really followed the book very well.

i went to the 7:15 showing and the theater was packed but but not sold out.

Terra Incognita

Terry; you’re beginning to look like a non-Christian version of Perry.

Concerning what you wrote and my responses below let me say that most of your statements are outright meaningless. It looks, though I’m not familiar with them, like they are Objectivist phrases. That reminds me of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who habitually state their talking points even though they have no relevance to the point being discussed.

So let the games begin:

I personally don't really care about Ayn Rand's opinions of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason why YOU DO.

Her opinions (which are also those of most of her followers) about Indians, or any other persons not having rights, is relevant to the extent that:

· That they contradict her own philosophy.

· That they are followed by Objectivists who would use her rationalizations against any charge of inconsistency.

· That her opinions are actually consistent with her philosophy of Objectivism.

More importantly, Terry, if you didn't care why were you defending her position in the first place?

So I remind you once more of what you said and its being a partial citation of Ayn Rand’s statement. A statement, whose overall context, was the justification of Europeans taking land away from the Indians.

Rand's argument concerned the fact that the American Indian never bothered IMPROVING their lot in life beyond being nomadic hobos."

If you had no interest in defending her ranting, then why did you not simply admit that my reference of her statement was correct and that you simply disapproved of it? You really knew all along what she had said in its entirety.

BOTTOM LINE TERRY, YOU WERE OBVIOUSLY DEFENDING AYN RAND UNTIL I EXPOSED WHAT SHE REALLY SAID. THEN YOU CHANGED YOUR TACTIC WHEN FACED WITH INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE SOFT PEDALING WHAT HER ACTUAL THOUGHTS.

I don't personally have a stake in the plight of the American Indian. I'm unaware of the reason YOU DO.

The reasons I make those statements about Indians is based on something that Objectivism apparently has no comprehension of. Altruism.

I think Objectivist Philosophy is consistent with itself. I assert that Christianity and its practioners is INconsistent.

That's about the total of my contribution to this discussion.

Having consistency in a philosophy is irrelevant to the morality or amorality of that philosophy. As I said before; a psychopath can have a consistent philosophy.

If you want to pick a fight TAKE A STAKE in it.

Where are YOU coming from philosophically?

Until you state YOUR position you are only hiding behind a safe wall and throwing dirt clods.

As for “picking a fight”, I guess that coming to the defense of oppressed people is considered by you to be an aggressive act.

As for where I’m coming from philosophically, don’t you think that a person’s philosophy could be deduced from his writings?

Should it then surprise me that you don’t see the “position” that I clearly took? And hiding behind walls? Why comment any further on this ridiculous point?

You are fatuous if you think I have any interest in defending the rantings of silly old woman who shot from the hip.

She had her opinions and made them clear. I have my opinions and I make them clear.

How amazing that a “ranting”, “silly old woman who shot from the hip” penned such a brilliant philosophy! How logical it is to expect such “consistency” from silly hip shooters.

You, on the other hand, seem to have no opinions that you will own. Why is that?

That question is definitely meaningless and it seems to me that it is another Objectivist phrase that you are flinging at me; like "dirt clods" from behind the "safe wall" of your soulless, don't give a rat's turd about those whose plight you don't have a stake in, philosophy.

Whatever statements I’ve made are either facts or my opinions. There’s no rational basis to claim that “I don’t own” my opinions. I’ve acknowledged my opinions here and now; but in my previous post I had no reason to talk silly, like you are, and explicitly say, “Hey folks, this is one of the opinions that I own”.

Is there a magical word or phrase, that Objectivists believe you should utter, to state the obvious? Or do I have to prove that I own my opinions by presenting a deed or other certificate of ownership?

The silliness or fatuousness is yours.

3,

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Humanity consists of The One, The Few and The Many.