MW: Oubliette, you still there to edit your post? You did such a nice summation, but forgot one thing they also mentioned -- it "prolongs conflict" !!
Nice catch!
I wish I could add it to my list, but you did for me!!!
an awake!tm article about shunning spouses.. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201306/the-silent-treatment/#?insight[search_id]=f6240b1c-2a33-4ac9-a50b-f2130feaa43e&insight[search_result_index]=0 .
apparently it's retaliation and manipulation.. i wonder what they think about shunning df'd or da'd victims?.
MW: Oubliette, you still there to edit your post? You did such a nice summation, but forgot one thing they also mentioned -- it "prolongs conflict" !!
Nice catch!
I wish I could add it to my list, but you did for me!!!
the watchtower june 2015 (bullshit).
the latest watchtower (online at j-dub dot argh!
) features a hilarious article.
It's strange they'd quote Steven Weinberg. He's well known for this observation:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
the watchtower june 2015 (bullshit).
the latest watchtower (online at j-dub dot argh!
) features a hilarious article.
Let's play their game:
"Some scientists feel that if the God of the Bible exists, they should be able to find him." - w15, 6/1, p. 3
Yes we do!
Why play hide and seek, that's sort of a childish thing to do isn't it?
the watchtower june 2015 (bullshit).
the latest watchtower (online at j-dub dot argh!
) features a hilarious article.
“the absence of evidence for any God who plays an important role in the universe proves beyond a reasonable doubt that such a god does not exist.” Victor J Stenger, Professor of Physics
It's not too surprising the WT writers DO NOT provide a source. This is their standard modus operandi. Their consistent failure to use standard academic practices when quoting others is one of the things that got me to start questioning.
That being said, I'm kind of surprised they'd quote this. It doesn't exactly help their cause.
an awake!tm article about shunning spouses.. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201306/the-silent-treatment/#?insight[search_id]=f6240b1c-2a33-4ac9-a50b-f2130feaa43e&insight[search_result_index]=0 .
apparently it's retaliation and manipulation.. i wonder what they think about shunning df'd or da'd victims?.
Great, they admit that "the silent treatment" is:
-
And yet they require all R&F members to do this for extended, indefinite periods to any and all that disagree with those in charge.
Let's review: It's a cult!
richard dawkins admitted that information inside of dna, and the origin of life on earth, might point to intelligent designers, perhaps extraterrestrials.
(see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boncjbrrdq8 )richard dawkins further admitted, in a debate with francis collins for time magazine, that science might point to a creator existing, but that this creator might not be anything like yahweh:.
time: "could the answer be god?
Ruby: I find viv and cofty just too hostile to reply to
When you say "hostile" do you mean ruthlessly rational? Requiring logic, reason and evidence?
Then I'd agree. They are both way too hostile.
this is a crappy letter from the watchtower.
i'm only posting it to show how micro-managers these fools are.
and at the end, they say: "we should avoid making specific rules about somewhat technical matters".
oppostate: Are they then asking all the JW males to sing at the highest of the ordinary adult male range. Maybe? I'm thinking BeeGees or Pewie Herman, maybe even Tiny Tim... "Tiptoe through the tulips..."
No. You are confusing a vocal range with a characteristic of a particular thing. This is similar to the mistake the writers of the letter made. The letter shows that they don't really know what they are asking.
The Bee Gees were known for their tight- three part harmonies, in particular Barry's falsetto became their signature sound. Tiny Tim was also known for singing in falsetto. I wouldn't know about Pee Wee Herman.
this is a crappy letter from the watchtower.
i'm only posting it to show how micro-managers these fools are.
and at the end, they say: "we should avoid making specific rules about somewhat technical matters".
this is a crappy letter from the watchtower.
i'm only posting it to show how micro-managers these fools are.
and at the end, they say: "we should avoid making specific rules about somewhat technical matters".
this is a crappy letter from the watchtower.
i'm only posting it to show how micro-managers these fools are.
and at the end, they say: "we should avoid making specific rules about somewhat technical matters".
warehouse: For talks and general listening it should be at an average of 68db. For singing and such, you should be at a max of 85db. Typically the amps at the cong. level should hit the protect limit at 100db or so.
I know you're just being sarcastic, but when I worked sound at the Circuit Assemblies and District Conventions in SoCal we would actually use a dB meter to help calibrate our sound systems.
That was the TECHNICAL/OBJECTIVE means of measuring. But we knew we had the volume "just right" when we got equal amounts of complaints that the sound was too loud/not loud enough! ... lol
BTW, your dB settings seem a little on the high side to me.