a few years ago while traveling in the northeast, my wife and i stopped in new haven, connecticut, at a b&b we'd reserved for the night.
no sooner had we unpacked and moved into the living room for tea and treats, our hosts began to talk about religion, and we learned they were jehovah's witnesses.
i didn't mind so much, but my wife was outraged that our hosts would use their place of business as a launching point to do missionary work.
I don't think they'd allow my male partner and me to stay in the first place. So, from that point of view, I don't think I would strike that kind of problem of finding out my hosts were JWs. I guess that's another good thing about being gay, huh?
They wouldn't bake you a cake either!
Edit - sorry, if you're not uk based you may not get that reference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32065233
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
CBS - seriously?
So, do you think that doctors are prescribing antibiotics in the mistaken hope that they will cure a virus based RTI - or do you think that doctors are prescribing antibiotics as a placebo or to help with a secondary bacterial infection?
a few years ago while traveling in the northeast, my wife and i stopped in new haven, connecticut, at a b&b we'd reserved for the night.
no sooner had we unpacked and moved into the living room for tea and treats, our hosts began to talk about religion, and we learned they were jehovah's witnesses.
i didn't mind so much, but my wife was outraged that our hosts would use their place of business as a launching point to do missionary work.
Put your experience on TripAdvisor so no one else are subjected to the same treatment.
beat me to it!
not too sure how long it will be, but i think that i will not be in a position to look at this site.. i met some cool friends on here.
i enjoyed having the speedy access to the private correspondence before the elders.
thanks atlantis, and all those that have had a share in this.
Not too sure how long it will be, but I think that I will not be in a position to look at this site.
Her Majesty's pleasure?
;)
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Landy, rather give a sugar-coated pill as placebo. And wait for secondary infection, then prescribe the antibiotic. Perhaps the person gets over the flu without a secondary infection. Then an antibiotic would have been unnecessary.
I'm not arguing that what they are
doing is right - I'm saying that they aren't prescribing AB for the flu.
Which is what you original assertion was.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Yes, doctors are still prescribing antibiotics for flu. They have been doing it 25 years ago, and they are still doing it. Yes, I know, they are wrong, but they are doing it. Google it and look up the following article:
But that's not what the article says is it?
Yes, antibiotics are being overprescribed, but the doctors know that they won't help with the flu. They're prescribing them for possible secondary infections or as a placebo.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
I think it's widely accepted that in the past doctors have prescribed antibiotics unnecessarily.
They haven't prescribed for flu as such, but they've prescribed them on the basis that they'll 'do no harm' or to prevent a secondary infection.
They prescribe them a lot less these days.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Is evolutionism not based on chance?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This is basic stuff ffs, get a grip.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Brilliant :)
found this very interesting article on another site.
looks like there people, and at an assembly too, who are not afraid to show their displeasure to the inhumane policies of the org.. http://avoidjw.org/2016/08/shunning-the-shunning/.
Sorry - my bad.
