Posts by fjtoth

39

Laptop Users I need your help

by noni1974 in

jw
friends

i'm going to buy my first laptop in the next week or two.i want to know what else i'll end up needing to go online with it at a wifi hotspot?there are a few of them around where i live at coffee shops and things like that.do i need a wireless service provider when i'm at these hot spots??.

also what would you recomend i get for use at home?i have a dsl modem that will allow me to have 4 computers pluged into one modem.i want to be able to use my laptop anywhere in my house.what do i need to reach these goals with a laptop??.

i've heard of wireless cards and wireless routers.but i don't know what they do or if i need them.i've never used a laptop before i have only ever used a desktop..

fjtoth

Noni,

My 2 cents worth again. I think you will regret not going with Vista. In a year you will likely be shelling out for it because it will be the "in" thing. There was all this scary talk when XP came on the scene too. All kinds of complaints. But most of us are comfortable with it now. The same will be true a few months down the road with Vista.

When I bought my laptop (for about $350 Canadian), it was fully equipped and ready to go. I didn't have to worry about installing cards or anything. I can go to a hotel or many other areas and not have to plug into an internet connection.

That's another reason why I highly recommend the larger stores. The little guy can't compete anymore, so he has to charge more. If he sells at the same price as the larger stores, he won't make a dime. In fact, he'll lose money. Don't try to do them a favor by keeping them in business. Do what's best for yourself by going where the price is better and you get much more for what you shell out.

Frank

39

Laptop Users I need your help

by noni1974 in

jw
friends

i'm going to buy my first laptop in the next week or two.i want to know what else i'll end up needing to go online with it at a wifi hotspot?there are a few of them around where i live at coffee shops and things like that.do i need a wireless service provider when i'm at these hot spots??.

also what would you recomend i get for use at home?i have a dsl modem that will allow me to have 4 computers pluged into one modem.i want to be able to use my laptop anywhere in my house.what do i need to reach these goals with a laptop??.

i've heard of wireless cards and wireless routers.but i don't know what they do or if i need them.i've never used a laptop before i have only ever used a desktop..

fjtoth

Noni,

Here's my two cents worth. DON'T buy a laptop from a small dealer in town. They usually charge more and you get less for your money. And don't buy a laptop that you have to upgrade in any way.

I have a laptop that is serving me beyond my wildest dreams. I have a desktop that I hardly ever use anymore because the laptop does everything it does and more. It's faster too, even though it's a Celeron (which I don't recommend if you can afford something faster). I'm not complaining about the Celeron speed. Because I regularly run my antivirus and some utility tools, my little machine is plenty fast. I use it mostly for building church websites.

What I have added is a desktop keyboard and mouse, so I run my laptop as though it were a desktop machine.

Now, I would recommend getting a laptop from a store like Sears. I'm in Canada, so I don't know if you also have Staples, another excellent source. You might also get a good deal at Radio Shack when they're having a sale. Here in the Toronto area, I've looked around and found that Sears generally has the best for your money. They only recently started selling computer here, so maybe they don't sell computers where you are. I've been disappointed in the inferior quality machines sold by Wal-mart. They don't have much memory compared to Sears and some others.

As I said, just my 2-cents worth. I hope you enjoy your laptop as much as I'm enjoying mine.

Frank

I'm making this suggestion because you are likely going to get a much larger hard drive and far more memory if you buy from the larger stores.

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

Wayne,

It is an extremely serious thing to toss those words around in these sites as though talking about the weather.

We're not talking about anything like the weather. We're talking about people's lives -- MILLIONS of them -- that have been damaged by this evil cult.

You will continue to defend it because you know very little about it. You demonstrate how true it is when people say "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

I think that if a pedophile or murderer were loose in your neighborhood, you would protect him just as you try to protect the Watchtower Society. The sooner the world knows how evil that organization is, and the extent to which it has introduced so much misery into people's lives, the better!

While no names are mentioned here, the entire movement is tainted.

AS WELL IT SHOULD BE!!! THE MOVEMENT HAS TAINTED ITSELF!

Frank

.

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

keyser sore,

I doubt it can be said any better or clearer than you stated it. Thanks.

Frank

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

46 distortions of truth and fact put forward in this thread by "Wayne L"

(With commentary in red)

"It is easy for me to prove the accuracy of JWs major beliefs by using only Protestant and Catholic writings (especially Catholic)." (So, you can prove 1914, no blood transfusions, two classes and destinies for Christians, Christ is the mediator for only the JW "anointed," not all Christians need to be born again, etc.)
The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible is so close to the NWT. (The Catholics actually copied the NWT word-for-word in many instances, didn't they?)
The New Jerusalem Bible says about John 1:1 that it "should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" Sounds like what JWs have been saying, isn't it? (It certainly doesn't sound like "a god," which is what JWs say, does it?)
The Watchtower Society does not restrict its members from surfing the net. (Then why have most individual JWs taken down their private websites in obedience to Kingdom Ministry instructions?)
"I'm still learning and waiting for you to teach me something I don't already know." (Then why do you fight so hard when those of us better informed than you try to enlighten you about what goes on among JWs?)
Catholic and Protestant translators quietly alter their bibles suspiciously in the JWs direction. (What is so suspicious about advancing with the latest discoveries in Biblical languages, etc.)
There are scholars who believe that Jesus read the divine name in its original form. (Can you name even one of such "scholars"?)
It is believed by some scholars that some NT manuscripts contained the divine name in its original form. (Again, what "scholars"?)
Catholic and other scholars admit that JWs are correct. (When have they done that, and on what topic?)
Scholars have retranslated a word here and a phrase there, nearly always in the Witnesses' favour. ("Nearly always"? Can you give even one example?)
There are scholars who believe the original Matthew contained the divine name and others who believe that OT writings with the name existed in Christ's day and later. (Who are these so-called "scholars," and do other scholars agree with their guesswork?)
The worst bible ever produced is the King James Version. (Come now! Have you personally compared it with the original Geneva Bible? Or the Jansenist Bible? Or the Cahen Bible? Or are you simply parroting what others have said?)
"My lifelong friendship with one of Jehovah's Witnesses qualifies me to correct some misconceptions about them, should the need arise." (Your qualifications are insignifican compared to those of persons who spent many years in the religion.)
"Anything I say on religion is 'fact', not emotion." (Tut, tut!)
There seems to be some evidence that some early versions had Jehovah at Romans 10:13. (Is the "evidence" accepted by Bible language scholars and reputable translators? Or are you accepting the guesswork of the WT Society?)
"I do have a few Protestant bibles that render John 1:1 the JW way." (And those few say "a god"?)
Since it takes conviction to become a JW, one is not coerced or lied to in any way, shape or form. (You betray such naivety and gullibility!!!)
JWs go through the Bible once every 3 years or so and are exposed to multiple bible versions and vast quantities of literature of all types. (And on what planet did you find JWs of this sort?)
No religious literature is banned among Jehovah's Witnesses. (Just let a JW get caught by the elders reading literature from another church, and see what happens!)
Christmas is 100% pagan and otherwise unscriptural. (Most Christmas traditions did not originate in pagandom. Many are of recent origin in western lands. You probably also believe the JW teaching that birthday celebrations are pagan, though wedding anniversaries are not. My, my!)
"Every JW I ever met is the person we should all be." (Yes, we should all be persons who can hardly wait for the time when all people who are not JWs will be painfully destroyed in a horrendous fiery destruction, even if they had spent their lives as doctors, nurses, firemen, etc. in the cause of helping others.)
"I am an honest person." (And very modest too. Right?)
Jehovah's Witnesses are not wrong to forbid the celebration of Christmas. (They most certainly are very wrong to divide families by disfellowshiping those who don't agree with them on this topic.)
And about predicting, JWs did make a sort of apology a few years ago and said they won't do it again. ("Sort of apology"? No, they did not. Instead, they blamed members among them who they claimed did their own speculating.)
JW members cannot be blamed for what some of their leaders do. (Just as the Nazis should not be blamed for obeying Hitler. Right?)
The divine name does not appear in the NT because of an unscripural and superstitious removal by the !st century copyists. (You could not possibly be mistaken, could you? The name does not appear in any of the most ancient manuscripts, and there is no evidence that "copyists" betrayed the church by means of a wholesale conspiracy against the name. And your accusation of "unscriptural and superstitious" ignores a more reasonable explanation. You don't think it's possible that Bible writers and copyists had motives that were good? That they did not want to take God's name in vain? That they realized they were sinners unworthy of even saying the name? Of course you don't, because you've swallowed the JW theory 100%.)
The confusion arising from the generic God/Lord in the NT can be blamed entirely on the superstitious, ungodly first/second century Jews. (Sure. If that's what JWs told you, it MUST be true!)
There is evidence that the Tetragrammaton extended into the 2nd/3rd century and was removed after that. (And who provided you with that evidence? And why are you keeping it so secret from Bible scholars who need to be enlightened by your great discovery?)
There are non-Witness writers who claim that at least Matthew used the Tetragrammaton in a Hebrew version and possibly all the others did in their Greek. (Oh, there must be thousands of such non-Witness "writers," eh?)
It is not my policy to use Witness literature as proof. (Neither to use any other literature as proof. Right?)
Jesus and disciples read the Tetragrammaton in temple writings which existed in their day, apart from the Septuagint. (Ah, yes, another secret discovery you've made!)
Claiming that thousands have died due to Watchtower policy is garbage. (Yes, I suppose so, despite what the facts clearly show.)
Serious accusations against the WT Society would not hold up in court. (That's right. The court that recently required the Society to pay out millions of dollars to its victims was going beyond the law, wasn't it?)
JWs don't murder! (How true! We mustn't believe what we read in the newspapers, mustn't we?)
If thousands of JWs lost their lives in Malawi, it would have been proclaimed everywhere, in all major newspapers. ... Major papers have reporters in the most obscure places. (Then why did the Society complain that the news media was ignoring what was happening?)
No one can prove God or the Bible. (No one? Probably even Jesus would fail at it, wouldn't he?)
My only purpose on this site is to make hatemongers, with no other purpose, go away. (So, truth tellers and those who expose wicked deeds are hatemongers, are they? It's not likely they'll be going away very soon, despite your most desperate efforts.)
"I'm trying my best to 'persuade' posters here to go after the real rapists, murderers, and liars in our midst." (And that's why you're glad we are going after the real ones among JWs, right?)
Jehovah's Witnesses do not commit murder or rape. These people were acting on their own and not following Watchtower doctrine because JW doctrines do not teach murder or rape. (Even though they were baptized members in good standing at the time they committed their crimes?)
Jehovah's Witnesses who as consenting adults refuse blood transfusions do so willingly and are not murdered by the Watchtower Society. (Oh, no, of course not! It's not murder when the Society threatens to disfellowship them if they accept blood, is it? If they die due to refusing blood out of fear of being disfellowshiped, it's not the Society's fault is it? The Society gives them completely free choice, doesn't it? Those "consenting" adults would not be given an ultimatum like take blood and you will get thrown out of the organization, now would they?)
This site besmirches all Witnesses everywhere because of a few bad ones. (This site besmirches evil practices, of which the WT Society is guilty of many.)
The 5 children featured in Awake of May 22/94 were NOT COERCED in any way. (Nope. They and/or their parents would have been disfellowshiped, but that in no way is coercion, is it?)
If there were a breaking story about Witnesses anywhere in the world, the Toronto Star would have it. (Sure, sure. The Star, in fact, is more concerned about JWs than any other religion, isn't it?)
Reporters love anything JW related. (Right! They eat, sleep and dream about JWs day and night, don't they?)
"I relish anti-Witness news." (That's why you relish this website, right?)
It is hard, if not impossible, to disprove the JW stand on blood transfusions and the 144,000. (Speak for yourself. Methinks you need to know your Bible a whole lot better than you claim you do!)

Frank

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

212

WTS hasn't corrected mistakes in NWT on John 20:28.....

by A-Team in

nwt scriptures: john 20:28-29 .

28 in answer thomas said to him: my lord and my god!

29 jesus said to him: because you have seen me have you believed?

fjtoth

Wayne,

Frank - I like JW reasoning and logic. . . .

I think their teachings about transfusions and the 144,000 are ridiculous, but it's their doctrine.

Do I detect a contradiction between those two statements?

You are not fighting it from the bible because it can't be done, so you resort to fabrication and inflammatory headers and silly cartoons.

And I suppose YOU have been using the Bible! Interesting. "Fabrication" is only in your mind. I haven't fabricated anything, and you know it, though you haven't got the humility or good sense to acknowledge it. And why do you lack the needed humility? Because you are also dishonest, especially with yourself. You won't acknowledge what is true because it will damage your self-centred ego.

The 5 children featured in Awake May 22/94 were scrutinized by judges and panels and found to be capable of making their own decision, and that they were NOT COERCED in any way. And you, in your infinite wisdom, call it "murder".

This shows how little you know what goes on inside their organization. Every JW is most certainly COERCED into refusing blood transfusions. Each and every one of them knows they will be disfellowshiped if they accept a transfusion, and that would mean the end of every friendship they have anywhere in the world. They would rather die than lose the favour of the organization they worship as their god.

If you had proof, the New York Times would probably pay a king's ransom for it.

Give me an example of where the NY Times has ever criticized JWs. You are speaking about something you know nothing about.

I had a lengthy running debate with MacGregor years ago about their gross errors and outright lies, to no avail. I'm tired.

Not all xJWs are in the MacGregor camp. If you were unable to defeat the MacGregor's, you might as well give up. There are thousands of xJWs who don't depend on them or anybody else to tell them about JWs. You haven't got a chance in a million of combatting the barrage of information we could be hurling at you -- information you refuse to accept but which is nonetheless 100% true!

And this, Wayne, is another example of your lying about being a JW. If you are not one of them, why are you spending "years" defending them, even to the extent that the average JW would not go?

You were on this mission a long time and now that I've cornered you and called you on your exaggerations, will you withdraw them, or would that take the pleasure out of life?

Name one "exaggeration." Just because you are incapable of accepting facts doesn't mean those facts are "exaggerations."

I say this - that if there were a breaking story about Witnesses anywhere in the world, the Toronto Star would have it. It's funny that you know things that reporters don't.

Just because you missed seeing the stories doesn't mean they never appeared.

Frank

.

212