Maximus

Joined

• started 32 topics
• posted 674 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Maximus

• 
  23

  Question for Tina

  by Maximus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  skimming earlier, i noticed the name satir.. i had occasion to work with a very special older woman who was an absolute delight.

  she had trained with virginia satir, who is now long dead, and vs had invited her to be part of her peace group.

  (starts with an a?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Avanta

  Yes!

  Thanks very, very much--much more than a name now.
  Funny isn't it. The journey is not linear.

  Like RipVW, I am not bitter but happier than I have ever been in my life.

  Maximus
• 
  4

  Archie: Requiescat In Pace

  by Maximus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ..................caroll o'connor.................... ..........................rip............................... all in the family.

  archie: now, no predjudice intended, but i always check with the bible on these here things.

  i think that, i mean if god had meant for us to be together he'd have put us together.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Got a favorite episode?

  Mine is Archie's surgery. He's in bed, helpless in the skimpy gown, covered only by a thin blanket.

  In walks someone in hospital blue garb. A woman. She's black. Speaks in a lilting Jamaican accent. Obviously she's the bed pan carrier.

  Not. She's the doctor.

  With a helluva sense of humor. Does the old Boogedda-Boogedda on him in a pretend Voodoo witch doctor bit.

  M
• 
  4

  Archie: Requiescat In Pace

  by Maximus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ..................caroll o'connor.................... ..........................rip............................... all in the family.

  archie: now, no predjudice intended, but i always check with the bible on these here things.

  i think that, i mean if god had meant for us to be together he'd have put us together.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Tee-JAY, Tee-JAY!

  You know what I'm saying. From that vantage point I had a unique glimpse.

  What was surprising was that while no one would overtly admit to seeing oneself in Archie, we could see our own father, father-in-law, uncle, or .... and we got exposed.

  For some it was their first real glimpse into an even somewhat real black family next door, exposed only to Stepin Fetchits and Toms who never told it like it was, as a workmate or whatever.

  We saw the absurdity of our prejudices and all the bizarre attitudes in Archie, yet we just couldn't bring ourselves to hate him. He was a fool, but we understood the cracker. And we talked and argued about him around the dinner table. Nothing Archie said that we didn't hear at work or even on the playground.

  Lionel: He'd never burn a cross on your lawn.
  Sammie Davis Jr: No, but if he saw one burning, he's liable to toast a marshmallow on it.

  I picked the God quote above because it is so subtle.

  I come down with those who feel All in the Family made powerful changes in society. It had been a world where couples never slept in the same bed, and no one had sex.

  Archie: When your mother-in-law and me was going' around together, it was two yizz or tree--we never--I mean absolutely nothing', not till the wedding night.

  Edith: Yeah, and even then .....

  Take care, TJ.

  Max
• 
  37

  My first time "storming" out!!

  by lookingnow22 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i "stormed" out of a meeting for the first time in my life tonight.

  well, i really just walked really fast, but inside myself i was storming.

  anybody catch some of the insolent comments made in the 6/01km?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  A corporate officer of the Society (NY corp) says that it takes one half the US Bethel family to care for the other half. Mmmmmmmm.

  That's incredibly inefficient. So much for their vaunted efficiency, borne out by the many posts by temporaries and others.

  The hard line is not very appealing to the young persons I've talked to.

  Black Man, you really put it eloquently:
  ::The concentration needs to be on taking an encouraging and NON-JUDGEMENTAL stance and focusing on how to be the best you can be and maintain have a spiritual focus. Spirituality is applying BIBLE PRINCIPLES and not serving the selfish interests of a publishing company.

  Now if only the Head Pollack could be convinced ....

  Maximus
• 
  51

  Gleaning at Bethel

  by Black Man in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  want to see bethelites act like greedy scavengers?

  just check out the tail end of bethel family breakfast, lunch or dinners.

  for those not familar with this phenomenon, gleaning was when bethelites could basically bring their tupperware dishes down and store up on the leftover meals once the family was dismissed (usually by prayer, except for the bethel dinner).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  ::I'd say that if you've been up there 10 years or more and don't have a mate you just a weird mofo.

  I'm dying with laughter. I'll restrain comment about how many I think belong in the weird mofo class, dawg. And you guys don't be doggin' my man the Great J. R. Brown, because he now the head N of the new Public Information office. Will look mighty good on TeeVee.

  My question is this: What does this hallowed practice tell us about the atmosphere at Christ's vicarage, the Bible House?

  Why do people take food to their rooms? Who are these tupperware ladies? Can you cook in your room? Why would you do that when you can eat communally, chatting away with friends who are of spiritual disposition?
  Huge grin.

  Maximus

  Footnote: When the Bethel family met in just one dining room in the US, everyone knew who missed Text and Comments, now dignified by the term Morning Worship. When Knorr said "Read the text, please" and you were not in your seat but down the hall, you had to slink back to your room so as not to show disrespect. Like as not, if your empty chair was spotted the Pres would call on you by name, to induce a deafening silence. That was tough the rest of the day.
  My wife got called on three mornings in a row. The fourth morning she fell down the stairs attempting to get there on time.
• 
  8

  Questions

  by anon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these are sincere questions directed to any who have first-hand knowledge.. i am new here, so i apologize if #2 is inappropriate for this board.. 1. how was it decided to ban 4 major blood components, rather than all or none?.

  2. how is counsel on oral sex applied?

  (judicial cases, behind-the-scenes, experiences?).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Sorry it took so long. Swamped just now.

  1) The blood policy is just that; policy rather than a core tenet now. The definition of four "major components" is an artificial one not made up by physiologists or physicians, so they are generally puzzled when a JW discusses it in this way.

  I'll give you the short answer here: the GB and decision-makers have been divided on the policy and that's the reason for the inconsistency. Once the door opened to fractions like Factor VIII, it became easier to take a good look at what the policy really meant and make incremental adjustments.

  They cannot ban all blood fractions. If they put the matter strictly in the "field of conscience," persons would still ask, "Yes, but what does the Society say we should do?" Or feel weak in faith if their conscience "permitted." "Conscience" would be tantamount to "no blood," is how some have reasoned. What's maddening is that there are those at the top who clearly understand that we have misapplied these texts. To acknowledge this would add to the disillusionment now becoming more widespread over the generation "adjustment." There are legal considerations as well.

  So now you can eat ham, Mayo, Swiss, and bread--separately--but you cannot eat the sandwich. And you can take hemoglobin prepared from cow's blood!

  I am aware of a web site that is a simplified presentation of the very reasoning that has gone on internally for a very long time; most persons don't know that there has even been debate, but there has, from Day One of the blood ban. I suspect it would be dulling reading for many, who just want to have the Society tell them what to do--easier that way. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend you take a look. And I would very much appreciate and respect your comments on it.

  www.jwbloodreview.org

  2) I'm hoping others will supply their "judicial" experience in the oral sex issue. In short, the Society states its policy is not to police the bedroom, yet it constantly refers to "degrading practices" from the platform particularly. Not to get judicially technical, let me just say that, depending on their training or level of humanity, elders either look the other way (on the one hand) or get somebody in a back room and mercilessly grill them on the most intimate details, attaching all sorts of pseudoscriptural names. Varies from congregation to congregation.

  3) If the "faithful slave" were to issue apologies on those policies and dogma on which it was wrong over the years, many would lose their viewpoint of it as Ultimate Authority, much like the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra--a de facto infallibility. It's easy to say "we all know the GB is composed of imperfect humans," but when one is before a committee questioning loyalty, one will be forced to accept that there is a channel, an FDS, and that the GB speaks for them and enforces its authority.

  There have been adjustments organizationally in an effort to be less hierarchical, and many of these are legal protections. These are becoming more public knowledge, as you will see in a post today from Comment.

  A personal experience. You will recall the district convention when the senior man attending read the statement from the governing body ("Society," whatever) that commented on the 1975 fiasco. I was present when Bert Schroeder read it--I admired him tremendously, have great affection for him. He literally stammered when reading it. Upset myself, I asked him about it. The "apology" had turned out not to be that at all. He told me it had been cobbled, edited, lines added, internal discussion about the precise wording, "balancing things." What most publishers heard was, "It's not our fault, it's yours for running ahead."

  Today I read younger posters who think the whole 1975 thing was a fabrication. They are not interested in the "generation" change. You will understand.

  In haste,
  Maximus

  Hope this helps; will post you privately. And no, it is certainly not an intrusion. I deeply respect and appreciate your e-mail to me.
• 
  2

  United States Branch Committee?

  by comment in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i don't know how many others here have listened to the audio recording of the speaker linked to under the topic "jw legal dept.

  speaks out," but if you did, you may have heard him mention the recent institution of a united states branch committee.

  (in addition to various things about the new corporations and the practice of answering the phones at headquarters with "jehovah's witnesses" instead of "watchtower.").

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  Maximus

  ...........
  ............
  ................

  BINGO!

  Maximus
• 
  8

  Questions

  by anon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these are sincere questions directed to any who have first-hand knowledge.. i am new here, so i apologize if #2 is inappropriate for this board.. 1. how was it decided to ban 4 major blood components, rather than all or none?.

  2. how is counsel on oral sex applied?

  (judicial cases, behind-the-scenes, experiences?).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Hey, folks, I can tell you this is a serious inquiry.

  Anon, I got your second e-mail just now and was just about to answer the first. I've been flooded with other inquiries.

  No, I was not on line but checked in. I'll send you a private note, but answer some of the questions here. Others will doubtlessly respond, but understand that posters here are used to jokers coming on who are just pulling their chain or "trolling." (Fred Hall seems to have some mental aberrations; pay no attention.) Other posters are exhilarated in their freedom and will say anything and everything. No need to apologize for #2. You'll get straight answers, hopefully; you can separate any kibitzers.

  I respect your many decades of service and your viewpoint expressed to me privately. I am not blind either. You will find MANY here who understand.

  Later,
  Maximus
• 
  12

  BETHELITES SERVED AT BROTHEL

  by bj in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  like metatron, i would like to know the facts that exist to prove that in the time of rutherford, bethelites and others got regularily serviced at a local brothel (as stated by barbara gazzutis in her book).

  if similar stories exist today, i would be glad to know about them as the wts takes delight in expossing jim swaggart and others!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  YouKnow, my attitude of indifference to you has just changed.

  You are utterly despicable, beneath all contempt.

  I lived through it with Barbara. She tells the truth.

  I hope everyone will read the piece by this remarkable woman, who was even more beautiful inside than outside. More on this another time, in some other forum.

  Maximus
• 
  12

  BETHELITES SERVED AT BROTHEL

  by bj in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  like metatron, i would like to know the facts that exist to prove that in the time of rutherford, bethelites and others got regularily serviced at a local brothel (as stated by barbara gazzutis in her book).

  if similar stories exist today, i would be glad to know about them as the wts takes delight in expossing jim swaggart and others!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Maximus

  Her name was Barbara Grizzuti, married, now
  Barbara Grizzuti Harrison.

  Writes pieces for magazines like Vanity Fair, I believe the title of her last was Italian Days, in which she describes her visit to Italy in search of her roots, along with her daughter. A gifted, intuitive writer.

  Those who know her protect her privacy fiercely.

  M