Posts by Saename

109

Serena William is 'fighting for women'?!

by LoveUniHateExams in

so serena williams lost the us open final 6-2, 6-4 to naomi osaka, her japanese-american opponent.. williams received three code violations from the umpire, carlos ramos: .

1. a warning for illegal coaching (subsequently admitted by williams's coach).

2. a point penalty for smashing her racquet.

Saename

Is there sexism in general in tennis sports?

Yeah. (Example at the end of my comment.)

Was sexism involved in this particular case?

Nope.

Serena broke the rules. Now she's gotta pay (quite literally, too, although her fine is less than 1% of her winnings, so...) She first got a warning for cheating (and it's pretty clear she knew her coach was instructing her because during the game, she said to the umpire he was just giving her a thumbs up, while the coach said in an interview later that she didn't see him. So which was it?) Then she broke the racket because she was losing and getting a warning, which is something anyone is going to penalised for. And then she didn't stop but continued to harass the umpire. Also, keep in mind that she didn't get penalised for just calling the umpire a thief; this was the last straw that broke the camel's back. She was arguing with him for much longer than that. When she accused him of being a liar and a thief who penalised her because he has a sexist agenda, well, that's when the umpire got tired of her bickering. And do keep in mind that Ramos, the umpire who penalised Serena, issued code violations to other players for much less than this, including men (e.g. Andy Murray and Nick Kyrgios who ironically also accused Ramos of double standards.) No sexism here. Ramos is simply stricter than other umpires.

Don't want to get penalised? Don't. Break. The. Rules. Didn't think I had to spell that one out, but here we are.

Also, with regards to the woman who took off her top, I think you're talking about the female player who took off her top just over a week ago because she was wearing it inside out, so she wanted to fix that? Is that the player you're talking about? If so, the penalty was completely unjustified, and yes, that would be an example of sexism (which is why the rule was changed immediately after this.) I think it's more accurate to say, though, that she adjusted her shirt, not that she took it off. The latter doesn't imply that she put it on again literally after a few seconds, which she did. She only took it off because she was wearing it inside out, so she fixed it and put it back on.

31

Jehovah’s Witnesses threaten Irish blogger with damages (avoidjw.org)

by Not_Culty in

jason wynne: threatened with legal action by the jehovah’s witnesses .

sect claims publication of its secret policy documents is a copyright violation; website contents also include documents concerning child sex abuse allegations.

https://www.businesspost.ie/news/jehovahs-witnesses-granted-subpoena-irish-blogger-412638.

Saename

scratchme1010, I think you're going too far when you say that Jason deserves to be sued if he violated the copyright law. Let's say that there's a PIMO elder in one congregation, and while he was looking through the congregation files, he found secret documents recording a case of child sex abuse that was covered up. In some regions, it would be illegal for him to bring it to the police. But this is what he decides to do, and the Watchtower sues him for it. Did the elder deserve to be sued?

Here's what I'm trying to point out. If you break the law, yes, you can be punished or sued for it. But that's separate from whether you actually deserve it. Jason possibly broke the law, and if he did, the Watchtower has the full right to seek legal consequences. But that's separate from saying that Jason deserves any of it. His website helped thousands of people worldwide over the years, and there's no denying that. Is he legally responsible for his actions if he broke the law? Yes. Does he deserve any legal consequences? Hell no.

50

How long is a generation?

by LevelThePlayingField in

what splain does in his talk and chart illustration is make the leap that a generation can have two groups.

and in this case the two groups span more than 108 years.

but no where in scripture is there ever a notion that a generation has two groups.

Saename

(Exodus 1:6) 6 Eventually Joseph died, and also all his brothers and all that generation.

I've had Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse to demonstrate that the Bible talks about the overlapping generation. They argue this based on "context."

86

Here's PROOF that Charles Taze Russell Was NOT a Pennsylvania Freemason

by AndersonsInfo in

no, charles taze russell was not a pennsylvania freemason!.

this is the answer i received in a letter: .

"after a search of our records, we determined that the three russell's were not members of our organization.

Saename

Solaris11 - I am not here to defend what I have written, I am here to share what I have learned.

This is a discussion forum. If you don't care to have a discussion, why are you posting anything? Asserting that Russell was a Freemason and then later refusing to provide the evidence isn't a discussion. You're just spouting provoking nonsense. Someone challenged you on your self-contradictory claim, so now you're running away, saying that it's not your job to demonstrate anything. But it is. It is on this forum because it's a discussion forum. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof to satisfy. If you don't care to provide the evidence, don't run around making claims you're not ready to defend on a discussion forum.

By no means am I saying you shouldn't be here, though; I'm saying your attitude doesn't fit the purposes of this board. With this approach, nobody here is going to take you seriously, so I really don't understand why you would even want to be here. But whatever...

48

Evolution doesn't happen today...WRONG...

by HowTheBibleWasCreated in

last year i had a brother tell me that one proof evolution is false is that he doesn't see it happening today... i was going to bring of viruses evolving so fast that new vaccines must be developed each year but felt he was too closed minded to receive it.

today i was listening to the audio book of 'an ancestors tale- richard dawkins' and noted oe point that shined through.. here is evolution happening>>>.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html.

Saename

cofty - There is some misinformation about subject that creationists like you exploit.

Could you specify what misinformation creationists like to use in their "debates"?

45

COLD today

by wasone in

jw
friends

it's a cold 13 degrees fahrenheit in tennessee this morning where i live.

glad i'm retired and don't have to work outside today.

what about where you live.

Saename

waton - That is not what the uninvited guests in 1941, 42, 43, 44, experienced there. a well deserved frosty non-welcome.

Yeah, it used to be cold and snowy which I can gather from what my grandparents told me. In the twenty-first century, though, all I've experienced in Bialystok, Poland (I didn't really travel to other parts of my country), was mild winter. I was disappointed multiple times because I've always loved winter, and I often wanted to play outside in the snow. But, alas, whenever there was snow, there was little of it, and it usually melted within a week. Those are my recollections anyway...

45

COLD today

by wasone in

jw
friends

it's a cold 13 degrees fahrenheit in tennessee this morning where i live.

glad i'm retired and don't have to work outside today.

what about where you live.

Saename

13 F and you're complaining? We've already had around -20 F (-30 C) here in Canada several times.

FadeToBlack - It has been an unusually mild winter here in central Poland.

I grew up in Bialystok, Poland. All we ever had was mild winter.

35

Child abuse

by Jrjw in

i was talking to a jdub yesterday about child abuse in the organisation and this was his response:.

"it has been known for kids to make stuff up.

we have to trust the society on these things, also the legal process is there.

Saename

Headline jw abuser never catholic or born again abuser.

To my knowledge, Australian newspapers are actually focusing more on the Catholic church than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

36

Is it 16?

by Jrjw in

hi can anyone tell me if it's true the society says parents must take their child to meetings until they're 16 even if they don't want to?

my ex is being a pain about me not forcing my 12 year old to be a witness.

he doesn't know i'm becoming inactive at moment so i have to be careful how i word things to him.

Saename

Someone on this forum made a remarkable statement that I will never forget. He said something to the effect of, "if the Society teaches that children as young as eight or nine are ready to make their dedication to 'Jehovah', then they are ready to decide whether or not they wish to attend meetings." That shut his pushy ex up who was trying to get their child baptized.

Oh my God. This is ingenious. This perfectly reveals the double standard in the JW community. 9-year-old kids can be ready and mature enough to get baptized and therefore dedicate their entire life to God (and even face shunning a year later at 10 if they fail to please God.) But these very same kids can never be ready and mature enough to do the opposite and not go to meetings when they're bothered by their JW parents.

33

Years REALLY DO FLY BY!

by somebody in

jw
friends

i just realized that i was 39 years old when i joined this discussion board.

i remember the morning conversations that always brought me laughter, and i think there were only a but about 9 or 10 regulars back then!

i will now turn 57 years old in a few months.

Saename

I was going to start a thread (still probably will) about how we, on this site, four years ago were discussing the fact that it was 2014, which was 100 years since the all-important JW date of 1914.

Oh my God, I remember that year. I was still a fully in Witness. I remember vividly sitting at a meeting, holding Our Kingdom Ministry from August, 2014, which on the front page claimed that a hundred years have already passed since Jesus became the king of God's kingdom. Oh, how happy were we about that! If someone told me back then that a year and around 10 months later I would become an atheist, I wouldn't believe them...