anyone watching this?
it's an australian production with the actress who plays lady edith in downton abbey.. great drama.. there was a surprise mention of jehovah's witnesses in episode 2. we just started watching episode 3 and, well, they are going to hate the kind of publicity this gives them!.
it will build on the terrible reputation they have after the commission investigating abuse within organisations, which the wts tried to obstruct and obfuscate their responsibilities in.. well worth watching as a drama in it's own right, but especially as a potential talking point about the wts.. on cbc in canada..
It's a passing mention in E02, you know, the kind where JWs would nudge each other and smile, because the world "knew about them". At the time we even said "ha, JWs get a mention, they won't like that the mad stalker was brought up a JW!"
But it's a way more major part of the storyline in E03.
I'd encourage you to watch it though, not just skip through it.
anyone watching this?
it's an australian production with the actress who plays lady edith in downton abbey.. great drama.. there was a surprise mention of jehovah's witnesses in episode 2. we just started watching episode 3 and, well, they are going to hate the kind of publicity this gives them!.
it will build on the terrible reputation they have after the commission investigating abuse within organisations, which the wts tried to obstruct and obfuscate their responsibilities in.. well worth watching as a drama in it's own right, but especially as a potential talking point about the wts.. on cbc in canada..
Anyone watching this? It's an Australian production with the actress who plays Lady Edith in Downton Abbey.
Great drama.
There was a surprise mention of Jehovah's Witnesses in episode 2. We just started watching episode 3 and, well, they are going to hate the kind of publicity this gives them!
It will build on the terrible reputation they have after the commission investigating abuse within organisations, which the WTS tried to obstruct and obfuscate their responsibilities in.
Well worth watching as a drama in it's own right, but especially as a potential talking point about the WTS.
On CBC in Canada.
actors' acceptance speeches have often been a little dodgy - viewers don't care what political or social views actors may have, we typically appreciate actors acting well.. this year's oscars awards ceremony seems to be going above and beyond, however.. here's frances mcdormand's acceptance speech, in which she dedicates her victory to 'our wolf' and then howls like a bitch, lol.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-_be0awgwk.
Most actors graduated ... drama class.
It's amazing that anyone ever listens to anything they have to say. They must collectively be one of the least educated groups known to man.
Just think when you were at school, who did "drama class".
Never the bright kids ... right?
Now add a lifetime of them being told they are wonderful, after whatever dumb-ass comment they come out with, and little wonder that they follow every nonsense-but-popular trend and lend their pretty faces to political campaigns that some puppeteer has convinced them is important.
"Drama class of 83, we salute you, your achievements are ... well, we're still waiting ..."
this is interesting.. you've probably heard of "asymptomatic spread" which is, people who are infected with the virus and are spreading it, but who have no symptoms.. but is it accurate?
is it supported by the statistics?.
this video analyses the facts and concludes that we've been given misinformation due to faulty testing.
A highly contagious, but statistically non-lethal virus.
The statistics?
Faulty PCR testing leading to inflated case numbers.
I believe the person who invented PCR testing and previous documentation about what is and isn't a suitable threshold for the tests.
Why not educate yourself by reading up on things instead of being lazy and wanting to be spoon fed?
that is true, capitalism 101
... and save us your marxist bullshit, it's not wanted here and that seems to be your main focus.
we are encouraged to all, if possible, get the vaccinations.
if you don’t, we are told that we definitely could get the virus.
fair enough.. but what happens if you decide you aren’t going to get the shots?
Yes, you can get the virus whether you are or are not vaccinated.
What changes with the vaccine is how likely you are to get it and how likely you are to have to be hospitalized if you do.
Ultimately, it lowers your chance of infection, hospitalization and death.
It does not absolutely guarantee that you won't get it, go to hospital or die.
It's not complicated!
actors' acceptance speeches have often been a little dodgy - viewers don't care what political or social views actors may have, we typically appreciate actors acting well.. this year's oscars awards ceremony seems to be going above and beyond, however.. here's frances mcdormand's acceptance speech, in which she dedicates her victory to 'our wolf' and then howls like a bitch, lol.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-_be0awgwk.
I just wish Ricky Gervais was hosting this year, lol.
Ricky Gervais is the only person who can save the Oscars now. They need a heavy dose of someone telling them what a bunch of useless self-obsessed twats they are, right to their faces.
Apparently the audience has gone from over 40m to less than 10m this year.
I had no interest in watching it. I couldn't care less about Hollywood.
here are some questions to ask witnesses.
how would you alter or improve or add to them?.
transparency questions.
My favourite question is:
What would convince you that the WTS didn't have "the truth"?
The reason I like it is it forces them to consider the possibility, which is a big step in itself, and it also may elicit a response that turns out to be something they have done!
If the reply is "nothing, it can never be so!!" then "wow, that's what someone in a cult would say!" may make them think.
It's different to just saying "you're in a cult", because you've reasoned them into admitting it through their refusal to even consider that they could ever be wrong. Forcing them to say it out loud means they hear themselves saying it. Makes it more "real" IMO.
this is interesting.. you've probably heard of "asymptomatic spread" which is, people who are infected with the virus and are spreading it, but who have no symptoms.. but is it accurate?
is it supported by the statistics?.
this video analyses the facts and concludes that we've been given misinformation due to faulty testing.
This is interesting.
You've probably heard of "asymptomatic spread" which is, people who are infected with the virus and are spreading it, but who have no symptoms.
But is it accurate? Is it supported by the statistics?
This video analyses the facts and concludes that we've been given misinformation due to faulty testing. There are very few who get the virus and don't have any symptoms and instead a faulty testing regime has dramatically over-exaggerated the number of actual cases.
my name is alex i lost my wife two years ago and i have been alone since then i have a kid who need a mom just hope i can find it here .
Sorry for your loss.
This isn't a dating site though and we don't encourage people to share their personal information with anyone.
In general I think limiting yourself to the small pool of people who are currently or have been a past member of a rather niche religious group isn't sensible.
Better to try and meet normal people in normal circumstances (though that can be challenging right now).
anyone following the derek chauvin trial?.
if you are actually following it, not just listening to the media, you will likely realize that there is a huge gap between what is going on in court and what is being reported in the media.. if the trial was fair, i think he should be acquitted.
there is plenty of reasonable doubt about the cause of death (his dealer doesn't want to testify because he could be guilty of 3rd degree murder for selling him a fatal amount of fentanyl) and even doubt over whether the officer even had his knee on the guys neck or did anything counter to what they were meant to do as per policy.. but is it fair?
There is a reason why rich people tend to get away with so much and when you are poor and can't afford a good defense, you are screwed.
Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, just a couple of names that come to mind.
But here's we're talking about publicity of the allegation and trial, not that the person was famous before. In this case the trial was way too politicized to be fair by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. Even the judge said so.
Why didn't those responsible for the 20008/2009 financial crisis go to prison?
It depends if they committed actual crimes or not and typically, politicians don't send people who bankroll them to jail - it's bad for business, their own business.
