Methinks someone is horny....
messenger
JoinedPosts by messenger
-
99
Is SEX all men care about??
by butalbee inthis thread is dedicated to all of the horny stud's out there who think with their penis: "big breasts, nice ass, i wanna mound her, blah, blah, blah...." i suppose then this would include ever man in the entire world, as horny as they are, just thinking about one thing and one thing only, sex...not that sex is a bad thing, sex is very nice, except maybe if you're a single jw, then your hand is your personal best friend.
but even so, they still think of sex, they just won't admit to it, or have lost the key to their chastity belt.
when a man see's a nice looking woman, what's the first thing they think about: "wow, wonder what she looks like naked", not "i bet she has a wonderful personality.
-
-
-
22
Washington Post -- Rev. "Jellyfish" R...
by Alleymom inalthough i am pretty new to this board, i've been reading about jw issues for a long time, around 13 years.
i have an old washington post article in my files, from may 4,1906, that i have never seen anywhere on the internet.. the article is titled "rev.
jellyfish russell" and it is a very sarcastic commentary on russell's infamous jellyfish statement, made during his court trial for divorce.. i copied the article from microfilm in a university library, and unfortunately it does have scratch marks, but the words are quite plain.. last week when i was doing an altavista search i came across one of tom tallyman's webpages.
-
-
messenger
It appears Pastor Russell had a lot in common with Bill Clinton. All Rose Ball needed was a blue dress and Pastor Russell would have not been able to wiggle out of this one. While it seems evident Rose was no child at the time, from sister Russell's testimony the good pastor "did not have sex with that woman," on the other hand, Rose confessed to her, "Rose has told me that you have been very intimate with her, that you have been in the habbit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other, and she tells me you bid her under no account to tell me, but she couldn’t keep it any longer."
So while the "Channel" was not actually getting stanky on his hang down, it appears he was getting oral assistance from at least a couple of attractive young women. It also appears this may have continued in the "special work" being accomplished in England. No wonder sister Russell lived in a marriage without intimate relations, the poor pastor did not have the ability to spread the "good news" among so many jellyfish. If you read his rebuttal testimony carefully you will find he never actually denied the jellyfish statement he danced around it. Bill Clinton would be proud.
----------------------
The testimony is as follows:
By Mr. Porter:
Q. You understood the ruling of the Court? You are to tell what you stated to your husband that Rose had said, and his reply to you.
A. I told him that I had learned something that was very serious, and I didn’t tell him right away. I let a day elapse, until I felt I had control of myself and would talk, and then I told him that I had something very serious to tell him about this matter, and he said: "What is it?" and I said, "Rose has told me that you have been very intimate with her, that you have been in the habbit of hugging and kissing her and having her sit on your knee and fondling each other, and she tells me you bid her under no account to tell me, but she couldn’t keep it any longer. She said if I was distressed about it she felt she would have to come and make a confession to me, and she has done that."By the Court:
Q. What did he say?
A. He tried to make light of it first, and I said, "Husband, you can’t do that. I know the whole thing. She has told me straight, and I know it to be true." Well, he said he was very sorry: it was true, but he was sorry. He said he didn’t mean any harm. I said, "I don’t see how you could do an act like that without meaning harm."
Q. What year was that?
A. In the fall of 1894.By Mr. Porter:
Q. Did you state to your husband at this meeting any endearing terms?
A. yes, sir.
Q. What were they?
A. I said, "She tells me that one evening when you came home" - I asked her when did these things occur. I said to him, "She says they occurred down at the office when she stayed down there with him in the evenings after the rest had gone, and at home at any time when I wasn’t around."
Q. Now, about the endearings terms.
A. She said one evening when she came with him, just as she got inside the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o’clock, he put his arms around her and kissed her. This was in the vestibule before they entered the hall, and he called her his little wife, but she said,"I am not your wife," and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Q. And what other terms were used?
A. Then he said, "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others," and she wrote that out so that I could remember it for sure when I would speak to him about it. And he confessed that he said those things.Counsel for respondent moves the Court to strike out the testimony of the witness in relation to the alleged misconduct between Mr. Russell and this girl, Rose Ball, which she says she discovered in 1894, the libel specifically charching that the offences of which she complains began in 1897.
By the Court: You have not mentioned that in the libel. I will grant the motion and strile out that testimony. You must begin your testimony about seven or eught years ago.
Bill of exceptions sealed for libellant.
By Mr. Porter:
Q. This suit was brought by you in April 1903, and we will be compelled to confine the testimony to what has happened subsequent to April, 1896, a few days one way or the other is not material. -
-
-
messenger
Sounds like to me the Stratton Lawyers got their collective butts kicked by WT.
____________Court Considers Solicitation Permits
The Associated Press, Tue 26 Feb 2002WASHINGTON (AP) — A skeptical Supreme Court questioned Tuesday whether the government may require a permit before anyone from a vacuum salesman to a Halloween trick-or-treater can ring a doorbell unannounced.
The tiny village of Stratton, Ohio, requires permits for any door-to-door activity. The town calls it protection for elderly residents who do not want to be bothered, but the Jehovah's Witnesses call it an unconstitutional limit on free speech.
``You think it's a beautiful idea that I have to ask the government for permission before I can go down the street ... and say, 'I want to talk to you about the situation with garbage pickup?''' an incredulous Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked the town's lawyer. ``That's astounding.''
Justice Antonin Scalia mockingly read a portion of the town ordinance that refers to the ``privilege'' of door-to-door solicitation.
``Privilege?'' he exclaimed by way of implying that speaking one's mind is a protected right, not a privilege that the government can grant or deny.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor drew laughter by asking about a trick-or-treater, or a Christmas caroler.
``The purpose is to prevent annoyance of the property owner,'' town lawyer Abraham Cantor said.
Lawyers for the church contend that Jehovah's Witnesses need no one's permission to pursue what the church views as its mission to take religion to others' doorsteps.
Mormons, Independent Baptist Churches of America, Gun Owners of America and the American Civil Liberties Union are among more than a dozen organizations that signed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the church.
The National League of Cities and other municipal representatives back Stratton.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by July on the church's appeal of a federal court ruling that upheld the permit rules as evenhanded.
The court already has held that the Constitution gives people the right to distribute anonymous campaign literature, and a ruling for the church in this case would extend that right to anonymous door-to-door soliciting for any cause.
Stratton's ordinance requires that permits be obtained in advance before anyone can solicit at a private home. It applies to commercial salesmen, school groups selling candy bars or political candidates eager to shake hands. The solicitor must carry the permit for display to any resident who asks.
Attorneys for the Jehovah's Witnesses said the town of roughly 300 people passed the ordinance in 1998 to keep away members of the faith from a church in a neighboring town. Stratton's mayor then told a group of Jehovah's Witnesses they were not permitted in the town, and people had moved to Stratton to get away from them, the lawyers said.
Church lawyers said similar permit requirements have popped up in other jurisdictions over the years. Neither the church nor First Amendment scholars keep track of how many localities have such requirements.
Village leaders said permits are free, and nobody has ever been denied one. The ordinance is reasonable in ``weighing the First Amendment rights of canvassers against the right of homeowners to security, privacy and peacefulness in their homes,'' they told the Supreme Court.
The Constitution's First Amendment guarantees both free speech and the free exercise of religion.
The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. v. Village of Stratton, Ohio, et al., 00-1737.
-
11
Email from JW friend re: UN scandal:
by stocwach inthought i'd share this response with you, and i guess i shouldn't be surprised:.
i hate to say this but this stuff is all a waste of time.
as for the united.
-
-
messenger
"Stupid is as stupid does sir."
-
7
Anti-watchtower magazine company
by d0rkyd00d ini was thinkin the other day, it's a damn shame nobody has started a nationwide magazine company producing a magazine that picks out all of the watchtower's flaws, and that is brought door to door on saturday mornings to show jw's for the asses they are.
i would be the first one in line to get the latest copies.
i betcha it'd tear down the whole jw structure....too bad, some dreams are only that..... "no cool quote yet, but i'll think of one soon.
-
-
messenger
How about an online magazine? It could be ran by Kent or Mike and have a bi-weekly showing.
-
-
-
messenger
Do JW's go along with using an identification badge? See Below:
WATCHTOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
25 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201, U.SA.
PHONE 625-3600
April 1, 1982TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS
Dear Brothers:
Reports coming to the Society on territory coverage indicate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain entrance into apartment complexes and condominiums. In some places legal suits have been threatened if the brothers continue to enter buildings. Often methods used to avoid detection while working buildings have resulted in poor relations with the management as they are concerned about security. How can we reach these people with the good news and at the same time show respect for the difficult task placed upon managers and superintendents? (Matt. 10:16) Herein are some suggestions that might prove helpful.In high security apartments and condominiums there are generally rigid rules about any kind of door-to-door activity. Managers and superintendents must answer to a board of directors for security. So they ask us to leave even though they may not personally be opposed to our work. When this is done we should immediately leave as requested since refusing to do so could be considered criminal trespass and result in arrest and criminal conviction.
Some progress has been made with managers of these complexes by arranging for representatives of the congregation to approach the managers or superintendents personally in a kindly way, explaining the nature of our work and seeking their assistance so we can in some way communicate with the tenants. How has this been accomplished?
Decorum and approach play an important role. When approaching these men it is best to be positive but respectful. If the reaction is unfavorable, it is best to acknowledge or agree to the extent possible and express empathy for the job he has in keeping the building secure and safe from strangers. It may bring a more favorable response if we offer to arrange for one married couple to come once a week or do only a few doors at a time and check in with the office before entering and when leaving.[b] If it is requested, there is no objection to asking publishers witnessing in the building to wear an identification badge. If concessions are made to allow limited door-to-door visits, it would be good to establish a certain specified time that visits will be made so the superintendent knows when to expect those who will be working in the building.[b/] It would also be good for the ones chosen to become personally acquainted with the management and/or superintendent.
-
8
challenges to door-to-door in stratton, ohio
by Moxy infascinating case taking place now in ohio.. from http://www.jw-media.org/releases/default.htm.
for immediate release.
february 25, 2002. u.s. supreme court to examine anonymity and free speech.
-
-
messenger
Will JW's go along with using an identification card? See Below:
WATCHTOWER
BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
25 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 11201, U.SA.
PHONE 625-3600
April 1, 1982TO ALL BODIES OF ELDERS
Dear Brothers:
Reports coming to the Society on territory coverage indicate that it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain entrance into apartment complexes and condominiums. In some places legal suits have been threatened if the brothers continue to enter buildings. Often methods used to avoid detection while working buildings have resulted in poor relations with the management as they are concerned about security. How can we reach these people with the good news and at the same time show respect for the difficult task placed upon managers and superintendents? (Matt. 10:16) Herein are some suggestions that might prove helpful.In high security apartments and condominiums there are generally rigid rules about any kind of door-to-door activity. Managers and superintendents must answer to a board of directors for security. So they ask us to leave even though they may not personally be opposed to our work. When this is done we should immediately leave as requested since refusing to do so could be considered criminal trespass and result in arrest and criminal conviction.
Some progress has been made with managers of these complexes by arranging for representatives of the congregation to approach the managers or superintendents personally in a kindly way, explaining the nature of our work and seeking their assistance so we can in some way communicate with the tenants. How has this been accomplished?
Decorum and approach play an important role. When approaching these men it is best to be positive but respectful. If the reaction is unfavorable, it is best to acknowledge or agree to the extent possible and express empathy for the job he has in keeping the building secure and safe from strangers. It may bring a more favorable response if we offer to arrange for one married couple to come once a week or do only a few doors at a time and check in with the office before entering and when leaving. [bold]If it is requested, there is no objection to asking publishers witnessing in the building to wear an identification badge.If concessions are made to allow limited door-to-door visits, it would be good to establish a certain specified time that visits will be made so the superintendent knows when to expect those who will be working in the building.[b/]
It would also be good for the ones chosen to become personally acquainted with the management and/or superintendent. -
-
-
messenger
In a small Ohio town, a fight over the right to knock on doors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Story Filed: Monday, February 25, 2002 4:36 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Feb 26, 2002 (The Christian Science Monitor via COMTEX) -- If you want to solicit door to door in Stratton, Ohio, you have to get a permit. The rule is as simple as that, say village officials.
Permits are easily obtained from the mayor's office. They cost nothing. No one has ever been turned down.
But that's not the problem, according to lawyers for a group of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking to spread the gospel in Stratton. They insist that Americans have a constitutional right to walk door to door and talk with residents without having to first apply for permission. They also say people have a right to do it anonymously - without being forced to disclose information to local authorities.
Today, the Jehovah's Witnesses' battle against Stratton's solicitation ordinance arrives at the US Supreme Court in a case that will determine whether the permit requirement is a permissible regulation of door-to-door activity or an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech.
It is a subject of great interest to cities and towns across the nation who are looking for ways to protect residents from possible fraud by con artists and the nuisance of uninvited doorstep solicitors - including those on a mission from God.
Free-speech advocates view with alarm the growing number of local ordinances restricting such door-to-door activity, noting that the quality of free expression in America is under siege by municipalities seeking convenience, safety, and privacy at the expense of First Amendment liberty.
"The last decade has witnessed a dramatic surge in the number and severity of antisolicitation laws," says Von Keetch, a Salt Lake City lawyer, in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in support of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Municipal officials increasingly believe there are few, if any, constraints on their ability to severely limit door-to-door evangelism in their jurisdictions," Mr. Keetch says.
The issue is not new. The US Supreme Court in the 1930s and 1940s struck down a series of municipal ordinances aimed at preventing religious groups from spreading their messages door to door. The Jehovah's Witnesses fought the bulk of those battles and is again in the spotlight.
At the center of the Stratton case is the village's requirement that prior to receiving a permit all would-be door-to-door solicitors must first disclose their name, home address, their employer's name and address, and a description of their planned activities. Once this information is collected, a permit is issued. Solicitors are instructed that they must produce the permit and identify themselves if so requested by any resident or police officer.
To officials in Stratton and their supporters, the permit is well-balanced tool that allows solicitation but discourages criminals from circulating in the village and protects residents' privacy.
To the Jehovah's Witnesses and their supporters, the permit amounts to an outright ban of anonymous door-to-door solicitation and pamphleteering - including political advocacy.
"The free one-on-one exchange of ideas is a pillar of our democracy," says Paul Polidoro, a lawyer for the Jehovah's Witnesses, in his brief to the court. "Stratton has devalued both the constitutional right of speakers to express information and the constitutional right of residents to receive it if they so choose."
Abraham Cantor, a Concord, Ohio, lawyer representing Stratton, says the solicitation ordinance is different from others that have been struck down on free-speech grounds by the Supreme Court.
"The Stratton ordinance does not require a disseminator of ideas, whether religious or political, to place his name on the literature, wear a badge, or outwardly proclaim his identity in any manner," Cantor says.
The ordinance was upheld by the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
The appeals court brushed aside concerns about restricting anonymous speech, despite a 1995 US Supreme Court decision that established by a 7-2 vote a constitutional right to distribute political fliers anonymously.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the 1995 anonymous pamphlet case. It says in part: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
It remains unclear how the seven justices who supported anonymous pamphleteering will view a case involving anonymous soliciting.
Cantor, Stratton's lawyer, says door-to-door solicitors do not enjoy a constitutional right to remain anonymous when they are on private property.
"The Supreme Court has historically indicated that the home is a sanctuary," he says. "It is the right of the homeowner to maintain and retain his privacy."
Polidoro counters that there are easier and more effective ways to protect privacy. Residents could post "No Trespassing," and "No Soliciting," signs outside their homes and then prosecute anyone who ignores them, he says.
By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
(c) Copyright 2002. The Christian Science Monitor
SUBJECT CODE: USA
Copyright © 2002, Christian Science Monitor, all rights reserved.
You may now print or save this document.
-
Scientologists face Paris ban
by messenger inhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1836000/1836812.stm.
saturday, 23 february, 2002, 01:55 gmt .
scientologists face paris ban.
-
messenger
. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1836000/1836812.stm
Saturday, 23 February, 2002, 01:55 GMT
Scientologists face Paris banFrance does not regard Scientology as a religion
The public prosecutor in France has accused the Church of Scientology of engaging in "mental manipulation" and called for it to be shut down in Paris.
The religious group, whose membership includes Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, is currently on trial for attempted fraud and false advertising in its efforts to recruit and keep members.This is about protecting potential victims. I ask you to think about the penalty of dissolution due to the methods used by Scientology
State Prosecutor Christine Forey
State Prosecutor Christine Forey also requested a minimum 300,000 euro ($261,000) fine against the group which has 20,000 members in Paris.The church has described the case as trumped up.
The trial, the first to be heard under tough new anti-cult legislation, was brought by three former Scientology members who accuse the organisation of harassing them after they had left.
A verdict will be delivered in May.
Commercial enterprise
The BBC's Paris correspondent says the case could be crucial for the Scientology organisation, which has had an increasingly difficult relationship with the French authorities.
The French National Assembly classifies Scientology as a sect rather than a religion and the group could eventually be banned under the new legislation.
The case has been brought by three former members
"This is about protecting potential victims. I ask you to think about the penalty of dissolution due to the methods used by Scientology," Ms Forey said.She called the Church of Scientology "an essentially commercial enterprise," which offered members "the illusory promise of revival" in their lives.
"The methods of Scientology, its deceitful promises of results which call for large donations of money, amount to a form of mental manipulation," Ms Forey said.
She also requested a 12,000 euro ($10,400) fine and a 12-month suspended prison sentence for Marc Walter, the 61-year-old president of the church's Paris division.
Computer files
The case centres on the experience of three former Church of Scientology members who say they were harassed by the group long after they had left.
The Church's membership includes a number of Hollywood stars
According to them, the group sent them dozens of booklets and invitations, although they had been asked to be taken off mailing lists.
The church says it was a case of computer error and not a violation of civil liberties, as the prosecution alleged.
Although the church's members have been in court before in France this is the first time its very practices have been targeted.
Hate campaign
Church of Scientology members have likened the trial to a witch hunt and say their faith is a religion like any other.
"This is a setup - the government is trying to destroy a religion. We are in an environment in France that's against religion and spirituality." said Marc Bromberg, one of the church's officials.
The church has submitted a complaint to the United Nations against France for "violation of human rights", claiming the group is the subject of a hate campaign.
The church is on a list of more than 200 groups which France considers to be dangerous, together with some other generally-recognised religions such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 by science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard. It teaches that technology can expand the mind and help solve problems.
-
-
-