Money.
Okay, there wasn't much of that - on her part or mine.
Whatever it was, it no longer seems to exist, at least on my end. I'm a married man living like the Bubble Boy.
rocketman
JoinedPosts by rocketman
-
52
What initially attracted you to your spouse?
by JH in.
was it the looks.....the way he/she talked to you, a certain chemistry?.
.
-
-
-
65
How Would You Feel If A Poster Just Vanished?
by minimus incan you imagine suddenly never hearing from gumby, blondie, metatron or simon again?
think about never hearing from your favorite poster or online friend.
-
-
rocketman
It did sort of happen with someone here who I had been e-mailing with and chatting online with. Then her computer went down. Then poof!, gone for about 3 months only to resurface here with one thread, a couple of comments, but no more e-mails or online log-ins. Then she vanished again and hasn't posted here for over two years.
-
18
Pope recieves "Last rites"
by ScoobySnax in.
according to an italian news agency, the pope has just recieved the "last rites" at the vatican....... ......looks like the old boy is on his way out.......
-
-
rocketman
Well, it's sometimes said that the famous die in threes. Johnny Cochran and Terry Schiavo died this week; the Pope appears to be next.
-
12
An interesting JW Topic on a Mountain Climbing forum!
by dh inby - mick's daughter @ work on - 10:12 tuein reply to newboyodano: .
" by - mick's daughter @ work on - 10:43 tuein reply to newboyodano: .
by - newboyodano on - 10:59 tuein reply to mick's daughter @ work: .
-
-
rocketman
The guy with the username "Alan" made a statement early on saying that the religion incorrectly predicted the end of the world more often than any other religion. But later he defends them after revealing that he is a jw.
-
46
The Watchtower, Scholar and Misrepresentation of Source References
by AlanF inour resident pretend-jw-scholar who calls himself "scholar" enjoys justifying lying and misrepresentation by the watchtower society and himself.
the society, out of one side of its collective mouth, recommends not misrepresenting source references, yet out of the other side, goes ahead and does so without hesitation whenever it is convenient.
the society understands that unfair quoting is dishonest.
-
-
rocketman
Thanks Blondie. It looks as if Johnathan Rauch has a book out in support of gay marriage, which in itself could explain why the quote is not attributed. But I couldn't open the first file so I'm not sure about the context.
But as you say, they so often quote without attribution that readers have a hard task following up the quotes if the want to check for proper usage.
-
19
Body Hair - Lowering the tone once again
by Qcmbr inhi all, having just had a long shower while contemplating my navel (no further details will be revealed) i got to thinking about body hair.
since i'm at that awkward stage in life when hair on my head is reallocating itself to my nose and ears - i just wondered whether your hair recedes on any other parts of your body as you get older!
?
-
-
rocketman
Recede? Sadly, that's only on the head, as far as I know. On the rest of the body, it just grows in places it never did before.
-
68
The evidence AGAINST evolution
by AlmostAtheist inno, sorry, i won't be providing any.
this is a thread for those that have done some research and concluded that evolution is not how various species came to exist.. have you done the research?
do you believe that species exist as a result of god's direct creation?
-
-
rocketman
My post would have been better suited for a recent thread on the Dino-birdie connection, but that thread seemed to end abruptly while this one was still cooking. So, showing no sense of proper thread decorum, I posted here. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for me.
-
46
The Watchtower, Scholar and Misrepresentation of Source References
by AlanF inour resident pretend-jw-scholar who calls himself "scholar" enjoys justifying lying and misrepresentation by the watchtower society and himself.
the society, out of one side of its collective mouth, recommends not misrepresenting source references, yet out of the other side, goes ahead and does so without hesitation whenever it is convenient.
the society understands that unfair quoting is dishonest.
-
-
rocketman
Excellent points Alan, and by referencing what the Society has written concerning the need for honest use of quotations and then showing an example of what they actually so often do in actual practice, their hypocrisy is easily exposed.
On the thread cited just above, Scholar wrote:
"This quotation was exactly made and correctly sourced but Thiele was most upset and felt that the Society had misrepresented him. Too bad!" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/87536/1.ashx) Such an uncaring attitude concerning accuracy in citation is quite unfortunate, and runs counter the the Society's own instruction (though not its actual practice) that Alan cites above.
We can of course take this one step further - let's say that a Jehovah's Witness reader actually investigates the matter of Ptolemy's Canon, Thiele's writings on it, and the Society's comments on it. He might then question a local elder (who will very likely not know where to begin in answering), then perhaps write a letter to the Society (he might get an answer; and if so there will be no admission of wrong, plus it would include an exhortation to speak to the local elders and a little reminder that it's Jehovah's Witnesses who are [supposedly] the only ones carrying out Jesus' command to preach), and, if he then presses the matter even further, or talks to other jws about his findings, would likely end up be labeled as a doubter, a trouble-maker, or even a person who was leaning toward apostasy.
My point is, and it's one that has been made so many times before (as recently as in mkr32208's comment on the thread linked above), is that the Witnesses have a mechanism firmly in place for discouraging and squelching honest inquiry. So when they use dishonest tactics, who within their organization can really question them or expose them?
-
68
The evidence AGAINST evolution
by AlmostAtheist inno, sorry, i won't be providing any.
this is a thread for those that have done some research and concluded that evolution is not how various species came to exist.. have you done the research?
do you believe that species exist as a result of god's direct creation?
-
-
rocketman
I came across this in Discovery magazine (April 2005; p 38), in an article addressing questions about dinosaurs:
"Fossils are not the only source of clues to the evolution of feathers; bird embryos are as well. A feather begins as a hollow tube. It then produces barbs that hook together loosely. This design can lead to the downy feathers that keep birds warm. In other cases, a feather will produce more hooks that lock the barbs into straight rows, creating the flat surface that birds need to fly.
"In 1999 Richard Prum of Yale University and Alan Brush of the University of Connecticut proposed that these growth patterns reflect how feathers evolved. Paleontologists have now found enough feathered dinosaurs to test their theory, and it is holding up well. The feathered dinosaurs most distantly related to birds had hollow tubes protruding from their skin. More closely related species had a few barbs branching from a central axis. And the feathered dinosaurs that were the closest relatives of birds had the most complex feathers."
Though scientists are not totally sure what purpose the protofeathers of dinosaurs served (mating displays, species recognition, and insulation are possible functions) it does seem clear that the fossil finds are confirming exactly what the evolution model would predict - a gradual increase in feather complexity as certain dinosaurs (dromaeosaurs - midsize bipedal meat eaters) changed over time, becoming more closely related to, and as many paleontologists believe, evolving into the birds we see today.
-
30
Scholar, 607 and Evolutionary Change
by AlanF injehovah's witnesses have recently done an about-face on their teachings about god, the bible, creation and evolution, and are about to announce major changes in their teachings on these things.
on their website, they say that "faith in god is merely an emotional experience.
" "god is not an explanation" of the universe, they now teach.. as regards the question of origins, "our universe is all a matter of chance.
-
-
rocketman
The reader alone is the final arbiter as to how that source is relative to a former context and a new context, all that he demands is that the quote be accurate and properly referenced. The reader can make his own mind whether any misrepresentaion is justified.
Interesting statement. If the reader is the final arbiter, then he should be supplied with a balanced presentation of the facts pertaining to a given argument. For example, when reading a publication such as the Aid book, the reader should not only have Thiele's statement of reservation concerning Ptolemy's Cannon in front of him, but also at least some information concerning Thiel's support of the Canon, which, according to Scholar, Theile was "staunch advocate" of and "passionate" in his support of. Well, there had to be reasons why Thiele felt that way about the Canon. Was at least some of that presented in the Aid book?
Part of the problem with religionists like the WTS writing on subjects in the realm of science, as they did in the Creation book, is that religionists already have a point of view - one that usually runs counter to evolution theory. So they'll present information in a way that persuades the reader to accept their point of view. Can anyone really expect them to sift through the evidence in an unbiased manner and then risk admitting that their notions were wrong? And how is a reader who is looking, not for support of his or her own preconceived notions but rather for an unbiased discussion of the facts, possibly be benefitted when such an approach is taken?