a dentist from houston, clara harris, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to twenty years yesterday, for running over her husband with her mercedes and killing him, in a fit of rage, after confronting him and his girlfriend in a local hotel.
now mrs. harris already knew about her husband's infidelity with the other woman, had even discussed with her husband how the two of them compared, and was apparently still trying to salvage their marriage.
but after the confrontation inside the hotel, she lost it and ultimately ran him over multiple times with her automobile, killing him.
She will be out in three to five years.
The way the law works here in Texas, she'll have to serve a minimum of ten years before she's eligible for parole. But still, that's not much, considering she was convicted of murder. And that's especially true, give the posture of the criminal justice system in Texas towards murderers.
a dentist from houston, clara harris, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to twenty years yesterday, for running over her husband with her mercedes and killing him, in a fit of rage, after confronting him and his girlfriend in a local hotel.
now mrs. harris already knew about her husband's infidelity with the other woman, had even discussed with her husband how the two of them compared, and was apparently still trying to salvage their marriage.
but after the confrontation inside the hotel, she lost it and ultimately ran him over multiple times with her automobile, killing him.
A dentist from Houston, Clara Harris, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to twenty years yesterday, for running over her husband with her Mercedes and killing him, in a fit of rage, after confronting him and his girlfriend in a local Hotel. Now Mrs. Harris already knew about her husband's infidelity with the other woman, had even discussed with her husband how the two of them compared, and was apparently still trying to salvage their marriage. But after the confrontation inside the hotel, she lost it and ultimately ran him over multiple times with her automobile, killing him. So what do you think? Did she get a just sentence?
.
is the internet really a good place to find information?a lot of people have learnt the truth about jehovahs witnesses through the internet, via web sites that proclaim to expose the truth about them.. but is the internet a safe place to gather information on important subjects?grated its very easy to find what you are looking for most of the time,but just how trust worthy is the information found within?often when i look at sites that discuss subject i have a good knowledge of there is a lot of nonsense talked by people who havent got a clue but just want to have a say.it is not always easy for the "novice" to determine who is the "expert" and who is not.. the internet suffers from this problem more than say books, because it is so easy for just anyone to write what they want, whereas to make a book you have to go through a lot of effort and it will have been read and checked by other people.. i tend to treat the internet like i treat people.i only listen if people can give a good explaination as to what they are saying or believe, if none is provided i will ignore the information whethr it is correct or not as there is no basis for me to trust it.. so in order to give good information we must always try to explain why we belive something to be the case.. dont just trust what you read (most people dont anyway)always look for the reasons why, and think of counter arguments , only then except what is writen and still be a little sceptical.
Is the internet really a good place to find information?
I guess it all depends on what one means by "information". True and factual information? Useful information? Or just someone's groundless perceptions? Sincere or otherwise. To me, it's kinda like this huge supermarket. There are aisles and aisles of stuff! Most everything is packaged so as to look nourishing and/or tasty. Some of it is, some of it isn't! You have to look close and read the fine print and, even then, it might be hard to find two shoppers who agree completely about what is and what isn't really nourishing or tasty. Over the years, we all develope certain tastes and certain opinions about how and what we should eat. I dare say most of us are going to fill our cart with primarily those items which we already know will satisfy our particular tastes and opinions. It sure makes food shopping a lot quicker and easier. But there are so many great things we could discover if we just take a little more time, look a little closer at what's there, broaden our perception a bit and maybe experiment a little. If we do, we're certainly not likely to enjoy, or benefit from, every new thing we try. But every now and then we may find something really special and enjoyable. So I would answer yes, the internet is a good place to find useful information, provided we're not too naive and are willing to sort through the BS to find it.
.
is it working now?
edited by - billygoat on 14 february 2003 17:50:41.
I knew an exotic dancer once, but she was Lithuanian. That's close, isn't it?
i thought the following from from our posthuman future by francis fukuyama was very interesting: .
"one writer states: 'one of the factors inhibiting sexuality with ageing is undoubtedly the brain-washing that all of us experience which says that the older person is less sexually attractive.
' would that sexuality were only a matter of brainwashing!
Btw, how did you arrive at your screen name?
It's an old Mississippi expression that means, "me"!
i thought the following from from our posthuman future by francis fukuyama was very interesting: .
"one writer states: 'one of the factors inhibiting sexuality with ageing is undoubtedly the brain-washing that all of us experience which says that the older person is less sexually attractive.
' would that sexuality were only a matter of brainwashing!
Aww, My, that's sweet! I'm glad for you......Again, it's not about committed couples, but about sexual attractiveness to the opposite sex in general.
Hmmmm!?? (Scratches head)
Being in the older set myself and now actively seeking a cuddle partner
Oooooohh! Now I undestand!
Sorry! My bad! Didn't realize I had wandered onto a singles thread!
Carry on!
i thought the following from from our posthuman future by francis fukuyama was very interesting: .
"one writer states: 'one of the factors inhibiting sexuality with ageing is undoubtedly the brain-washing that all of us experience which says that the older person is less sexually attractive.
' would that sexuality were only a matter of brainwashing!
I'm not exactly middle-aged, not unless I'm gonna live to be 120, but let me share something with you children. Age looks a damnsite different, looking at it from the outside, than it does from the inside looking out. Maybe I can't speak for everybody, but a lot of us seniors have changed a hell of a lot more on the outside than we have on the inside. The gray/thinning hair and wrinkles have nothing to do with what you feel and how you think. I still have the same basic interests and tastes I did at twenty-one. I've just learned to be a little more thoughtful and discreet in pursuing them. Me and my lady still enjoy dancing, motorcycle riding and a few more intimate activities. We will celebrate our 41st wedding anniversary on the 24th of this month and I'll guaran-damn-tee you we won't do it watching Lawrence Welk re-runs on PBS.
.
it seems the more time goes by, the more i miss being a jw.. i miss my friends.
i miss the feeling of safety of the group.. i miss having hope.. i miss it a lot..
Joel, I think it's a very natural thing to miss the good things of the past, even if they were part of something which, overall, may have been distasteful. But, if I may, let me share something with you.
I was disfellowshipped in 1978. Even though a year earlier I had already started to become disillusioned with the WBTS and resigned my eldership, that had nothing to do, directly, with my disfellowshipping. My disfellowshipping was for one of the classic reasons. However, after being disfellowshipped I began to feel a new kind of freedom. The freedom to think objectively. I no longer felt reluctant to question the ideas and teachings I had embraced all my life. I was able to recognize and declare out loud as error much of what I had once proclaimed as "the truth". Then, after about two years, I began to really miss being a JW, or at least miss the association with the only friends I had ever known. Then I began to rationalize. Maybe it was my thinking that was all screwed up. Maybe this was "Jehovah's organization". Maybe I should try to get reinstated. And I did. It took about nine months of going back to meetings and a few meetings with the committee and in 1981 I was reinstated.
Then a funny thing happened! Once I was "back in" and the stress of trying to get and keep my s#*t together was over, I started actually paying attention in meetings again and thinking about what was being written in the publications and being said from the platform. Then in hit me! What the hell was I doing? I didn't really believe this stuff! As much as I loved many of the individuals - and, for the record, still do - I no longer had the ability to sit there and swallow the bull-dookey without a chaser. I began to see that I had moved farther away from that part of my life than I had realized. So I gradually stopped attending meetings. I just kinda faded away. That was just about twenty years ago. Now, other than an occasional memorial service at the Kingdom Hall for one of my old friends who has passed on, I never have a single thought about going back.
The point of this little story is just to say, it's hard to go back home. If you do decide to give it a try, you will likely find it just doesn't feel like it used to. Follow your heart, but just to be on the safe side, check the roadmap of common sense ever now and then, too! I wish you the best, in whatever you decide to do.
i've been away from the forum for a while.
i've read some of your great posts while my roommate is on the forum, but haven't been able to write anything for a while.
but here goes.... how many of you really believed this as a jw or did you find it hard to sit with?.
It seems to me that, like most other religions, the two prime commodities the WBTS is hawking are fear and guilt. Getting people to buy into either, or both, is essential to their agenda of control. Characterizing God simply as a merciful and compassionate father just doesn't get the job done. The treat of some horrific expression of His divine retribution is far more effective! And that shunning bulldookey offers a great bonus! It allows a great many of those who practice it to have an almost Abrahamic experience of martrydom. Just look at what they are willing to sacrifice for Jehovah!
I have to go barf now!
as i recall, "the society" at one time taught the flood waters of noah's day came from an immense canopy of water, which formed sometime during creation and hovered above the earth until it all broke loose in the flood.
o.k., cool.
but does anyone know of an explanation of where it all went afterwards?
WOW! I didn't expect this thread to get such a response! Some really great posts, folks! I guess the original question kinda evolved into a broader issue - no pun intended - but that's fine. However, I've noticed that, whenever the issue of evolution vs.creation arises, the dialogue seems to center primarily around patent, no-god/creator, evolution through the nebulous concept of natural selection vs. simplistic mystical creation by a stereotypical, Jehovah-type, god/creator. There doesn't seem to be much middle ground. But honestly, if you throw out the idea of a wrathful, egotistical, snaps-his-fingers-and-things-just-appear, biblical type of god/creator and just entertain the concept of deliberate cause by an entity or entities possessing intelligence and means to initiate and manipulate the processes we call evolution, why is that more absurd than accepting everything we behold or know about as being the the result of a mind-boggling sequence of pure contingencies? While I personally find the latter far less plausible, I sincerely try I have an open mind on the issue. I'm just not aware of any scientifically established fact or facts which would absolutely, categorically, exclude the possibility of intelligent design and cause. Why is one concept more absurd than the other?
