Posts by mustang

343

Defence of watchtower society Links

by reniaa in

i thought long and hard before making this thread, that many will not agree with it but i think there needs to be balance and people to realise there are alternate viewpoints out there on many of these subjects, the ones that are most spoke about on this forum.

i was recently sent a full message containing mary's book and these links give the rebuttal to many of her points.

those that are still open-minded enough feel free to look over them even if in the end you still don't agree at least you have heard both the defence as well as the attack as they are on the internet.

mustang

Dates.....half a dozen peeps quoting wt from early last century quoting dates right back to the times when even the wt still had a cross and birthdays.....I made the point higher up that dates don't mean a massive issue to me and certainly in those early days they wanted to predict specific times but as I said it does show as a leftover from their adventist roots.

My "dates" reply was in response to

they have never actually given a date for Armageddon,

I used the 1925 date that Rutherford said was THE END in black and white for years ahead of time.

I'm little concerned with the dates myself, except you mention "were they damaged by this originally" [paraphrased] indicating that they will leave dates behind. I believe the hypocrisy in them doing so, damaging their followers and barely ever admitting the failure is totally damning. Yes, they are damaged thereby.

Consider also the "we're spirit directed", borderline claiming infallibility, making big boner mistakes and then pulling back to "imperfect men", then flip-flopping the cycle over and over again. This "spirit directed", but "light getting brighter", making a liar of God is even more damaging than the first item of dates.

Put these two together and they have lost credibility irrecoverably. They aren't "spirit directed", they are "spirit blocked" from the very top, highest levels and from very early on. They are fatally and terminally "spiritually constipated".

Thank you for replying to my "dates" notes. With the huge volume on this topic, I didn't see that until very long after having left the topic. I may not revisit this interesting but very active topic for reasons of available time.

Mustang

9

Light getting brighter

by Matt_fs in

in proverbs 4:18 as you know all, says that the path of the righteous ones would get brighter and brighter.

what does the brighter and brighter exactly mean?

how would you explain that to someone?

mustang

It means Lost Technology: they must have had oil lamps with DIMMERS back then

Mustang

28

What are the legal limits of defending ones property? CSI: Mailbox baseball

by inkling in

jw
friends

so i was watching csi this week and a homeowner, in attempt teach a lesson.

to local kids who kept bashing his mailbox while playing mailbox baseball,.

fills his mailbox with cement one night.. that night, a kid swings at the box, breaks his shoulder, the bat shatters.

mustang

Anyone here know if that would be illegal?

Hmmm....

If you had a REASON to fill it with concrete, you could have a plausible argument to defend whatever happened.

I would have done it differently:

Buy a rather LARGE mailbox and a smaller one. They come in a variety of sizes and the same general shape.

Set the large one on end with the open up; put the smaller one inside the larger one. Adjust the airgap between the two about equally all around.

Now pour the concrete and "rod it" for consistency.

Let it harden, setting the concrete.

Now install your armored mailbox.

Now for some mental exercises: you have to consider the "Reasonable Man" construct or Legal theory. What reason would you have to deploy a solid filled mailbox?

That speaks against doing what the story portrayed. If the pranksters did that to the mailbox owner, it would be considered Malicious Mischief or something similar. That's a genuine and applicable charge.

The Reasonable man examination would further ask: what does the Post Office say about this? Frankly, the Post Office considers that IT owns the box, even though you supply it. And the box can be anything you desire as long as it is SERVICEABLE. The solid concrete mailbox is not serviceable. The Reasonable man is going to have trouble with your solid concrete mailbox.

The Reasonable Man may also have trouble, in counter, seeing that you could foresee such a bizarre and awkward chain of events that was portrayed. This lessens your liability.

However, it gets you back to something along the lines of Malicious Mischief, but no quite. (Malicious Mischief specifically refers to damage inflicted on the property of ANOTHER, not your own property.)

Now the Reasonable Man and the Post Office would find a lot less issue with your armored PO box. It is not an unReasonable response to property damage.

In the same vein as the above mental exercises, setting traps IS DEFINITELY FROWNED ON LEGALLY. I don't know the exact reasoning, but DON'T TRY IT.

Defenses would be based on Tort theories; but such invoking Tort theories generally requires a Tort warning to be posted.

And reasonable man queries here involve the "foreseeable" danger on both sides. On the one side, could the mailbox owner have foreseen such far reaching consequences? Regardless of how far you carried it, a Tort Warning should have been posted for such an unusual act.

This gets into the "Attractive Nuisance" matter. These usually refer to unattended holes, swimming pools, trees that can be climbed and so forth. The deadly mailbox is difficult to see, foresee or fathom.

Additionally, joyriding pranksters are not unknown: Coroner's Inquests frequently write these matters off as "Death by Misadventure" and with no chargeable offense. It is possible that a Coroner's Inquest could do otherwise and request a further investigation.

Hard to say; but look at OJ's case: I think this would easier to defend Criminally than Civilly!!!

I have trouble foreseeing the events portrayed myself and frankly the writers look like they really did a stretch on this one. I believe it borders on the absurd, but strange things do happen.

Mustang

25

The two reasons Witnesses think they are the Truth

by BonaFide in

jw
friends

i have had several conversations over the past few years with brothers that i know that are elders, c.o.

's, and bethelites.

one thing almost all of them have said:.

mustang

I doubt that the Amish & Mennonites go either; there have always been non-religious C.O.'s (Conscientious Objectors) as already was pointed out. During W.W.I some anarchists railed against the draft and went to prison, same as Russell and Rutherford. One of them got more notice in his legal battles than the WTS. (Back then, the "clear and present danger" theory held in interpreting the Sedition Act: all you had to do was print or speak out not to go.)

These are weak arguments (including the preaching) when held up against the hypocrisy. Once someone declares themselves so self-righteously as the JW's do, they are held to a very exacting scrutiny, with no room for mistakes. They fail: these brothers only convince themselves.

Mustang

35

WT: Dumbing down the message; no intellectuals allowed

by Hiddenwindow in

have you noticed that the most recent publications by the watch tower, and particularly the study articles of the watchtower magazine, contain less and less references to secular sources?

there is not doubt that the society was always making efforts to provide us with a historical and quasi-intellectual perspective of the world.

i am sure all of you can think of books by the watch tower that contained extensive information on history, biology, and even philosophy (insight, creation book, the bible -god's word or man's?

mustang

And mustang, Gene Scott! Ha! I liked watching his program (re-runs) before the wife finished her "mourning period" after his death and took over the program whole-hog. She eventually even took his name off of the TV screen and put hers instead.

He was deep, and he loved the Grace message, Paul, and Romans.

Yes!!! He trashed James: remember the "James Is A Jerk" sermon? That puts WTS right where it belongs.

I still like what AlanF said when someone asked what JW's thought about Grace: it's just a woman's name!!!

BTW: I'm looking for a copy of the James book that WTS did a while back. I hear it's in disfavor

About 3 or 4 years ago, I bought a DVR and recorded about 40 of his sermons. I hope I got the important ones.

Melissa has essentially shut down the "local TV congo'. They both had threatened that over time, but she has finally done it, it seems. For about 10 years, I didn't have to go out of the house to go to "church" :)

Mustang

109

What do you think of this-obese win right to 2 airline seats for price of 1

by sir82 in

jw
friends

see this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827328/.

obese have right to two airline seats, one faresupreme court of canada rules for those functionally disabled by obesitywhat do you think?

just from a purely selfish standpoint, i would be grateful if the 500 pound passenger next to me were able to occupy 2 seats, rather than being wedged into 1 (and spilling over the sides)..

mustang

I actually think you have a great idea with this. There are frequently places on the plane where this could be done without impacting everything else: like the place where two seats are by the galleys. Make one of those into a jumbo seat. And we do do "Cost Reductions" in Engineering. I'm always afraid of what we get when we do those.

Hey, I just noticed: you start JWD about 3 days before i did!!!

Say Hi to Farkel for me; I fixed something he was talking about (being unrepentently mysterious)

Mustang

109

What do you think of this-obese win right to 2 airline seats for price of 1

by sir82 in

jw
friends

see this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827328/.

obese have right to two airline seats, one faresupreme court of canada rules for those functionally disabled by obesitywhat do you think?

just from a purely selfish standpoint, i would be grateful if the 500 pound passenger next to me were able to occupy 2 seats, rather than being wedged into 1 (and spilling over the sides)..

mustang

JamieB has the sensible thought.

But frankly, this is overlooked because designs are done for 'nominal' conditions that are midstream in the realm of possible circumstances. That is why we used the statistics mentioned above. And that is a 'numbers game'. So, at some time, these exceptions surface.

Having been in Engineering, I've seen the inevitable missing of all possible contingencies having been considered. Then again, they may be considered and minimized. Now, to go in and retrofit is not trivial or cheap. And the "life cycle" of an airline design is about 20 years.

If it's taken 80 years (~ inception of passenger service) for this to make it to news/courts/attention, then I'm little surpised that it hasn't been considered in designs. That goes right along with the position that this problem has on the "bell curve".

Hey, I'm OK on doing it: but somebody will have to pay major bucks. Minimzing this to something trivial shows lack of familiarity with airplane design and production realities. The joke about the plane not going out until the paperwork equals the gross weight of the aricraft is painfully close to the truth.

Here's a thought: 1st Class has extra legroom and such. Make the airlines put them there. This one is going to be real popular

Mustang

109

What do you think of this-obese win right to 2 airline seats for price of 1

by sir82 in

jw
friends

see this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827328/.

obese have right to two airline seats, one faresupreme court of canada rules for those functionally disabled by obesitywhat do you think?

just from a purely selfish standpoint, i would be grateful if the 500 pound passenger next to me were able to occupy 2 seats, rather than being wedged into 1 (and spilling over the sides)..

mustang

Have you ever worked in aerospace: NO, I'm sure, but I have.

Have you ever been in the factories where airline seats are made: I have.

Have your ever talked to or dealt with the FAA: I doubt it.

My consulting company did a STC on a B707. It was signed off by the FAA, FCC and Boeing.

Have you ever flown a plane, with responsibility for people's lives: they are called SOB's by the FAA; that is for Souls On Board. I have.

Have you ever had a battery explode in flight, hit a wind shear and the plane 'go knife-edge' in the blink of an eye while on final approach? I have, w/ passengers.

Do you understand STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION? Are you familair with the BELL CURVE? When we do the statistics, we don't have to worry about the popluation of 'mixes' such as 2 x 100's. We worry about an abnormal distribution of the small numbers expected at the high end (right side) of the curve. If large numbers of the 300+ pound people show up, then something may have to be done. That's why we set a mental note to check peopel over certain sizes.

Smaller planes hit this limit rapidly, larger planes have more margin.

Don't mention peace and Christ the same day that you go 'Oh, Please' in condescension and ignorance.

Mustang

109

What do you think of this-obese win right to 2 airline seats for price of 1

by sir82 in

jw
friends

see this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827328/.

obese have right to two airline seats, one faresupreme court of canada rules for those functionally disabled by obesitywhat do you think?

just from a purely selfish standpoint, i would be grateful if the 500 pound passenger next to me were able to occupy 2 seats, rather than being wedged into 1 (and spilling over the sides)..

mustang

Again, the "standard passenger" is 180 pounds. I can't take my helicopters lesson if I weight 225, say. The alarm bells go off in the neighborhood of 250 for other planes and services, I would say. At 300 pounds, I'm definitely back to the drawing board on flight planning.

And as this whole the discussion started, the NUMBER OF SEATS IS LIMITED. We don't have to worry about the mix, because the 180 pounds is at such a point on the STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION that fewer people will show up above say 250 pounds.

The 220 pounds on the helicopter is based on 2 passengers ONLY and the horsepower of the engine (and lack of the large horsepower margins that airliners have), lift of the blades, air density (rho) and a few other of the flight equation parameters. With all due respect, Christianity has little connection with the flight equations.

Again, its a "numbers game", with the larger passengers raising the alarms. THIS IS DESIGNED INTO THE SYSTEM, LITERALLY. With all due respect, your lack of understanding is the "silly rabbit on the field".

If there is someone in your life who has such a situation, I understand your empathy. By the same token, you need to understand how the rest of the world works.

Mustang

109

What do you think of this-obese win right to 2 airline seats for price of 1

by sir82 in

jw
friends

see this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27827328/.

obese have right to two airline seats, one faresupreme court of canada rules for those functionally disabled by obesitywhat do you think?

just from a purely selfish standpoint, i would be grateful if the 500 pound passenger next to me were able to occupy 2 seats, rather than being wedged into 1 (and spilling over the sides)..

mustang

First, the "standard passenger" is set at a 180 pounds allowance. This is based on STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION of population demographics. (Old numbers: may need reveiw.) And on that bell curve, I doubt that any given flight will have more than 1 400 pounder, maybe 2 300 pounders. IF SOMEBODY NOTICES an abnormal situation, "pilot's discretion" can be invoked and remedies instituted.

But would they really lose that much if they made 2 or 3 seats just a little wider? Not much. Problem is... SKINNY PEOPLE WOULD GO FOR THOSE SEATS and clamor that they have a right to the "extra" space as much as the next person. Whether they actually needed the space or not. Right? And so, the argument would go, well, who's to say how much space skinny people need?

Actually, not a bad idea, but not implemented at all, to my knowledge.

Let's see: Airframe configurations are subject to the TSO (Technical Standards Order) process. Modification requires the STC (Supplementary Type Certification) process to amend the TSO.

Since you are asking for a new type of seat, that means design, possibly some R&D and certainly some testing and qualification sequences. Then you can proceed to the STC process, w/ your brand new Part Number.

The ticketing process can direct the appropriate passengers to these seats. The Flight Attendants have authority to make such rearrangements, if the ticketing process didn't catch it. If there is any doubt, the Flight Officers can exercise their legal authority to move passengers around. Behind them are Air Marshals and other authorities.

As with the wheelchair passengers, these arrangements can be made ahead of time. I have done just this for others. Assigning the seats is the least of the problems.

I've seen a similar STC done for 6 figures. Your requirement of a new seat design pushes that to megabucks, literally. I'll leave it to you to lobby for this enhancement. I cheer you on: the more such projects, the more work for some of us. I'm bidding on some aerospace work.

Mustang