Female ignorance at work in that story. You can't get a tight enough grip on a penis, tight enough to prevent him from pulling it out albeit painfully but successfully, unless you press tight enough to crush it in the first place. Thus the story has no point. The penis is a goner already before the fire ever begins.
Posts by Seeker
-
16NEVER piss a woman off
by Xena ina wife came home just in time to find her husband in bed with another .
woman.
with super-human strength borne of fury, she dragged him down the .
-
-
-
14
Infinite Justice?
by Satanus ina us vs afghani scorecard to date.
by robert fisk@ .
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=111323.
-
-
Seeker
What conspiracy? That the videotape may have been faked? Other than that this article is a summing up of what has happened so far, not a conspiratorial rant. I think it's helpful to get the other side of the story, even if it comes from an idealogue, for we certainly aren't getting both sides of the story from the U.S. media.
I don't know how many of the facts in this article are accurate, but I do know that things are not as simple as Bush likes to paint them. People in the U.S. seem to be relaxing now that bin Laden is on the run, forgetting that terrorism does not live or die solely with him. This is a much more complex problem that we are being led to believe. Like the War on Drugs, this War on Evil will never end, in my opinion. That's why I was so upset to see our rights being curtailed in these "temporary" "war-time" measures. I know we will never get those rights back, and I know that things are not as simple as the U.S. media makes it out to be.
So I welcome opposing viewpoints being posted here, even less-than-100% accuracte viewpoints, for the U.S. media certainly posts less-than-100% accurate pieces. By comparing all sides we can begin to perceive the reality of the situation.
-
50
Lord of the Rings
by think41self inhey guys,.
the family and i just got back from seeing the movie.
those of you who read the books will not be disappointed!
-
-
Seeker
Yes, but Peter Jackson's Direction was horrible. He is a hack.
Interesting viewpoint, one that seems universally disagreed with.
I know each actor's nostrils intimatly, now. Horrible blaring music sounded everywhere, and he seemed obsessed about showing helicopter shots circling around Frodo.
I know what you mean, but it was hardly all through the movie. I didn't get that sense at all.I did like McKellen...very good choice. I would have like Galadriel more if it wasn't so badly directed. What the hell was with the Galdriel boogie-woman transformation? In the book, it just says she "seemed" to grow taller(when Frodo tempts her with the ring), not change into a she-devil.
Oh yes she does. She is terrible and fearful in the book, as well as beautiful and wonderful. Remember, elves live in both worlds simultaneously, and their true nature as described by Tolkien is quite fear-inspiring.Also, notice the awful Bilbo Rivendell "Large Marge" effect from Pee Wee's Big Adventure? Horrible.
Didn't care for that either. He does transform in the book but through emotion, not physical appearance. I think Jackson was showing Bilbo becoming Gollum-like for an instance, in physical appearance. After all Gollum did look like Bilbo at one time, so it's clear that over time the physical appearance of a ring-bearer changes. Jackson chose to illustrate that for an instance, and it fits the books intent if not the letter.How silly was incorporating the chapter titles in as dialouge? Gandalf says in the beginning, "An unexpected party". WHOA- WhOA!!! How CLEVER!!!!!! No wait, that isn't clever.
I loved that dialogue! Very fun to hear, and a gesture to the fans.Arwen is in the Fellowship(the book), but only briefly, and her Enya-esque speech at the river is just stupid.
That was very true to the books. It's true, we only get the details about her in the appendix, but the book of Fellowship does tell us they spent time together in Rivendell, though we don't get to hear what they say. But what they had her say is basically what's in the appendix, put in dialogue form. Blame Tolkien.Viggo is an idiot, just as bad as he was in Portrait of a Lady.
Loved his world-weariness, yet bold man of action, and true leader while remaining humbly behind the scenes.Unfortunatly, both Sam and Aragorn were non-characters. Gandalf was the best rendered; my only annoyance was the slight camp in some scenes with him.
No need to show Gandalf bumping his head, yes. But Sam was realized beautifully, I thought.What the hell were the orcs doing crawling up walls?
They swarm, like in the book.What was Shrek doing fighting alongside them?
Because Tolkien wrote him in. -
50
Lord of the Rings
by think41self inhey guys,.
the family and i just got back from seeing the movie.
those of you who read the books will not be disappointed!
-
-
Seeker
More random thoughts:
Love seeing the characters brought to life just as I imagined them. Exactly right!
What a warm Gandalf McKellen made!
What a noble Legolas.
What a lovably gruff Gimli.
What very warm and rounded the hobbits were.
Loved Galadriel, just as I pictured the beautiful and fearful lady of the wood.
In short, the characters drew me in, and made me want to be among them. Middle Earth has always seemed to be a beautiful place to live, and this movie made that beauty come alive.
-
50
Lord of the Rings
by think41self inhey guys,.
the family and i just got back from seeing the movie.
those of you who read the books will not be disappointed!
-
-
Seeker
OK, finally saw it and here's my view:
I see the purist point-of-view. I knew going in that some was changed from the book, and I understood why they did it, and supported their right to do it. A movie is not a book, and shouldn't try to be one, for they are entirely different forms of communication. No Tom Bombadil? No problem. I understand they have to keep the story flowing, and even Tolkien wasn't sure what to make of ol' Tom.
Yet for the first half-hour or so, I was jarred by just how many things were chopped off. I was beginning to be a bit resentful of all that I was missing when a wonderful thought came to me: the fact that much was missing only means they are still in the book and thus still in my heart and imagination whenever I want to revisit them. This movie is Peter Jackson's vision of Middle Earth, not mine, and more power to him. If I made my vision come to life, he'd have problems with it too. That's the nature of storytelling. We all want to tell a story our way, but Jackson is the one who got the money to do it, and I think he did it right.
What? Wasn't I complaining just a moment ago? Yes, but in a nitpicking way. On the whole, Jackson got it right! Mostly serious? Check. Hobbits always joking? Check. Gandalf the Grey as an old man? Check. The elves being remote? Check. The romance of Aragon and Arwen? Check. The beauty of the Shire? Check. Moria? Perfect.
In short, it's a true triumph in the best sense. Jackson got to make his version of Middle Earth and, though it isn't my vision exactly, I got the idea that Jackson "gets" Tolkien the same way I do. It's a wonderful movie. And the best thing of all? "My" Middle Earth is still where I left it: in the books and in my imagination, and Peter Jackson cannot touch it.
-
1
Mind Control, Brainwashing, & John Walker L...
by Amazing injon walker lindh: i have been following the various comments about lindh, on tv, radio, newspapers, and on this forum.
i have had mixed feelings about this young man.. looking back: in 1968 when i became associated with the jws, i was still 17, the same age as lindh when he got involved with islam.
in 1970, when i was baptized a jw, i was 19, the same age as lindh when he joined the taliban and went to afghanistan.
-
-
Seeker
I have similar thoughts about this subject, Amazing. As an American, I believe in the freedom to think what you wish. Thus I have no objection to Walker deciding to side with the Taliban -- that is his right. I disagree with his choice, having despised the Taliban for several years now, but he still has the right to act in his own way.
He has violated a law of the land, however. He chose to fight against America in a conflict. To what extent he did, I do not know, but in general we call such actions treason.
Yet your points may be correct about his being subjected to mind control. On the other hand, maybe he wasn't, and walked in with his eyes wide open and chose a course against American interests. Just because we don't agree with a person's choice, it doesn't automatically mean he suffered from mind control. Now, I haven't read all that much about him, so it's possible he was subjected to what we would agree is mind control techniques and I just don't know about it.
So what do we do with someone who has renounces America? Generally, we send them on their way, stripping them of their rights as U.S. citizens in the process. However, it gets trickier in the case of treason. We may not technically be at war, but there was an armed conflict and he apparently fought against the U.S. There are laws to deal with treason, and a trial to be conducted.
That trial part is vitally important, however. To what degree was he in his right mind? We don't know yet. It's like a murder case. Do we automatically kill murder suspects? Of course not! We put them on trial to find out their degree of culpability. Were they in their right mind at the time? Was it a crime of passion, or premeditated, etc.? Once you know those things, you can begin to mete out an appropriate level of justice.
Walker will go to trial, and then we will find out his degree of culpability, and until then not one of us knows for sure what he did, why he did it, and what he deserves.
-
23
ELDERS JUST HERE, and now I'm
by FreeFallin inconfused.
was in the middle of sending out some last minute "seasons greetings," cards.
any way, he spoke of the events of the last year, how they were significant, about the brothers going to the trade center and offering comfort from the scriptures, while priests and ministers only offered water and towels, and about the change in subscription arrangement.
-
-
Seeker
He's probably a nice guy, and it's natural to respond favorably to kindness. Plus you have all that JW mental training that responded to the buttons he pushed. We've all been where you are, and what you are feeling is perfectly natural. Just remember, you can decide for yourself what to do. Don't let us sway you. Don't let the elders sway you. Do what is right for you.
As for what the elder says, let's take it apart, shall we?:
Any way, he spoke of the events of the last year, how they were significant,
Did he give any specifics about their significance, or just talk in generalities?about the brothers going to the trade center and offering comfort from the scriptures, while priests and ministers only offered water and towels,
At that moment, the one thing needed most were water and towels. The workers had a job to do, not stand around and talk about the future. That talk could have and should have come when they weren't busy working.and about the change in subscription arrangement.
Is that significant of anything, according to him?But he said that Jehovah was loving and kind (and I really want to believe that)
You can believe that, and still not be a JW, if you wish. Many that leave the WTS continue to worship Jehovah, some of whom post on this board.and that brothers do make mistakes.
Did he differentiate between mistakes from imperfection and deliberate deception? The Bible, as you know, excuses the former, but condemns the latter.He also told me that if I can only get to a meeting now and then, it would be okay.
Until you start going to a meeting now and then. Then it won't be OK any more, and they will ask you to make all the meetings, and it would be OK. Then after you start going to all the meetings, they will ask you to go out in service now and then, and it would be OK. Then after you start going out in service now and then, they will ask you to make the national average, and it would be OK.... -
5
Elder Lies To Newspaper Reporter
by MadApostate intab to bottom of article to read "theocratic warfare" lies from elder>>>.
some churchgoers won't be going to see graham .
by barbara anderson.
-
-
Seeker
In that elder's mind, by "follow through with it," he continued the sentence with "by studying with JWs."
Deception by omission, but once again a technical truth told in such a general style that it implies the wrong thing.
-
5
Elder Lies To Newspaper Reporter
by MadApostate intab to bottom of article to read "theocratic warfare" lies from elder>>>.
some churchgoers won't be going to see graham .
by barbara anderson.
-
-
Seeker
"We have the freedom to express our religion, and we don't deny that to anyone else,"
Very slick, indeed. Grammar rules say that what he literally said is, "We have the freedom to express our religion, and we don't deny [the freedom to express their religion] to anyone else." In other words, he was literally saying that Catholics have the freedom to express Catholicism, a fairly meaningless statement to make. However, it sounds as if he is implying that JWs can express their religion in any way they want -- something that is not true, but also something he didn't technically say either. Just implied.
Another example of legalese in the modern-day organization. Imply a lie while technically telling the truth.
-
40
At Which Table Are You Feeding?
by YoYoMama inat which table are you feeding?.
you cannot be partaking of the table of jehovah and the table of demons.1 corinthians 10:21.. these inspired words of the apostle paul show that two figurative tables are set before mankind.
each table is identified by the kind of symbolic food placed upon it, and all of us are eating at one or the other.
-
-