in the 2-15-02 body of elders letter a paragraph is dedicated to child abuse issues.
many have claimed this an adjustment for the better with regard to wt policy.
sadly this could not be further from the truth.
I see my relevant statement has been ignored up to this point.
BTTT, I want answers.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
HA.
You have been content to continue this unnecessary argument now haven't you?
I said before:
I have my opinion, you have yours.Were you content to let it go at that? No.
You made no mention of not addressing me in the last few posts on this page now have you?
No, you only make that statement after you have been made to look like a fool.
I said before, what Prisca said was a lie.
Even if unintended, she was deceptive in her choice of words.
She DID lie. It may not have been intended.. but, my bottom line was:
Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?End of discussion. I grow tired of debating frivolously with an obviously bitter old man who gets his quotes distorted.No.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
WOW, you are slower than I originally thought.
Why dont you stop for a moment and take the context of where and when I make these statements.
I will try ONE last time to break it down in simple terms for you.
Prisca said:
I stated:It's soooo cool! I just got the password for an old boyfriend's hotmail account. Looks like he's been pretty busy since we broke up.
Tongue-in-cheek humor or not, this is a flat-out lie.So, therefore, while it may have been an attempt as tongue-in-cheek humor, it WAS indeed a lie. For she did not "get" any password, and her statement MAY have deceived someone.While it may not have been intended, your statement was deceptive and may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
You are twisting words I say.
I suggested it was a possibility LB was deceived, for I said:
may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.I stated it was a possibility, not an absolute that LB was deceived. I still stand that what Prisca said was a lie.
You are taking two entirely different statements and melding them together to fit whatever foolish purpose you have with this.
I said it was a possibility, not an absolute that LB was deceived.
I said what Prisca said was a flat out lie.
Those are two entirely different things. Having difficulty realizing that?
I said before:
I have my opinion, you have yours.Not content to drop the matter yet?
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
Hey Refiners-
If that picture in your profile is indeed you, you are acting quite childish for your age. Considering you posted a flurry of questions immediately after my post predicting you would have something to say, I will address you.
And finally...what up your bum??Real mature assessment there buddy.
Secondly, I assumed nothing. The quote you used was:
LB trusted you because of what you said about that site.Dino said that, not me.
I said:
may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.I suggested it was a possibility, not an absolute.
To confront your inquiries:
Where does Prisca recommend anyone to use the hack?1. Yes, inadvertently. What part of my previous post did you not understand? Prisca said:
It's soooo cool! I just got the password for an old boyfriend's hotmail account. Looks like he's been pretty busy since we broke up.Are you denying that in her intended joke a lie was included? Saying "it was cool" and that she "got a password" implied she used it.
My previous response still stands.
Tongue-in-cheek humor or not, this is a flat-out lie.Having trouble grasping that concept are we?While it may not have been intended, your statement was deceptive and may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
Now if your still with me, on to #2.
Did Pris even enter the hack herself?Her statement was:
Anyone who is stupid enough BLAH BLAH BLAHObviously not. Funny again this "anyone stupid enough" argument resurfaces. My initial comment on this still stands.
This may be true. Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?Do you feel differently? If so, your opinion, and I respect that.No.
On to #3.
Did LB enter the hack site on Priscas recommendation?LB said:
All I get is the error page when I try it.It would appear so, but again I assumed nothing. To one with an infantile grasp of English when you "try" something and "Get an error page" you have attempted it.
So no, I assumed nothing. Also, as I predicted, you would enter again and start torching people with this "whats up your bum" nonsense.
You failed to address the main point of my post, and instead responded with questions and insults of your own.
If you had difficulty reading, Ill try again.
Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?I feel I have sufficiently answered your questions and clarified the matter.No.
Going to resort to more childish pranks?
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
hey dude--i'll send you an email to make sure you see this---.
in the thread yadira posted, you stated:.
when i was a rising star, i used to help collect the money from the contribution boexes after the meetings.
Society's Kingdom Hall Building Fund -- best scam of them all, goes to a seperate account in Brooklyn and then loaned back WITH INTEREST to the locals to build Kingdom Halls.
From what I know, this is correct.
When I worked a few times on QuickBuilds, I talked with an accounts servant a few times about this.
The money donated and placed in the Kingdom Hall Building Fund is sent to the Society, and then subsequently loaned back out to congregations in need of financial assistance WITH INTEREST to pay for builds.
Pretty sick scheme eh? You never really comprehended how corrupt the WTBTS is until you get "out" and gaze back without "rose-colored glasses" on.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
It's soooo cool! I just got the password for an old boyfriend's hotmail account. Looks like he's been pretty busy since we broke up.
Tongue-in-cheek humor or not, this is a flat-out lie.
While it may not have been intended, your statement was deceptive and may have indeed convinced LB or someone else to try it.. thinking it worked.
Granted, someone may reason:
If LB or anyone else was stupid enough... BLAH BLAH BLAHThis may be true. Someone may be naive, but does that it make it acceptable for you to contribute to them being deceived?
No.
I expect to get torched here by Prisca, refiners, and whoever else disagrees.
I have my opinion, you have yours.
I was fully aware this was a hoax which was why I posted it immediately, so as to PREVENT someone else from being manipulated.
Obviously some other people do not share such concern for others.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
in the 2-15-02 body of elders letter a paragraph is dedicated to child abuse issues.
many have claimed this an adjustment for the better with regard to wt policy.
sadly this could not be further from the truth.
This is the 3rd time I have seen this specific number arise, and I am surprised no one else has said something.
2. 38 States require Clergy and Lawyers to report pedophiles.How can you have 38 states which require and 22 remaining3. Some of the 22 non-mandatory states have various shades of this, such as some states 'encourage' clergy to report, but do not make them testify if is breaks the 'confessional' privilege. NONE of the 22 remaining states
[Bold mine for emphasis]
38+22=60
Last I checked the USA stopped at FIFTY states.
So which is it? Not trying to be rude or malicious.. but somewhere along the line the numbers are distorted.
Please explain or correct.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
I hate to burst anyone's bubble but whoever tried this has had their own personal email address compromised.
If you notice, at the sign-in stage, you are required to put in YOUR password.
Now, the password to your email account has been revealed.
This is a hoax to get into your private information folks, lots of them out there.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
i had two boys come to the door selling candy bars.
they rang the bell and then pounded on the door.
i was folding laundry and could not untangle myself quick enough to get to the door before the banging started.
Consider yourself fortunate Puffsrule.
It is a sad state of affairs for children today.
Here in Chicago I have SEEN kids address their mom in public at the shopping mall with:
"shut the F#!! up you mother F@$%ing B$@ch, I dont have to take Sh!t from you you F%#@ing C$@T."
Kid couldn't have been over 8 or 9 years old. You know what the mother replied with?
"Its time out."
Absolutely NO control over their children these days. Dont get me wrong, "jag-off" is rude, but that's mild compared to the surprisingly everyday use of enough 4 letter words to make a sailor blush.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
http://www.theonion.com/onion3815/why_do_porn_actors.html .
by maggie lehman .
like many people, i enjoy pornographic movies.
You gave me an idea that will revolutionize the industry.
Mute the television so you dont have to listen to the endless profanities. Instead, turn the volume up ALL THE WAY UP on your CD player and play KINGDOM MELODIES, preferably the Marriage is Gods Arrangement selection.
It is not religious persecution for an informed person to expose publicly a certain religion as being false, thus allowing persons to see the difference between false religion and true religion.
WT 11/15/1963 page 688 paragraph 3
