Pudgy

Good points, Matthew9969, but although we have some coincident awarenesses, you are not my friend. I saw a cartoon where there was a chapel at a funeral home, and the casket was up front. On the pews were three scattered mourners. At the back the Funeral Director whispered to his assistant “I don’t understand it … on Facebook he had over 400 “friends”.

…. I am having trouble visualizing who you are talking to with this canned buzz word generated script.

When simple, straightfoward explanations are treated like secret military intelligence … “We would tell you, but we would have to kill you, hahahaha” is met with nervous laughter and whirlwinds of rumors. When cover stories have cover stories, and “New Light” causes history to be “revised”, who can you trust?

When simple, straightfoward explanations are treated like secret military intelligence … “We would tell you, but we would have to kill you, hahahaha” is met with nervous laughter and whirlwinds of rumors. When cover stories have cover stories, and “New Light” causes history to be “revised”, who can you trust?

…… except of course the Italian Hoovers … they are house dust crazy!

Cartoon dogs go by a different set of rules.…. much like the residents of Flatland. But you are right … nothing sucks like a Hoover.

Since your answer did not address what Jesus said, and what the Apostles understood, all you did was prove that you have not a clue, and the “overlapping generations” doctrine is an agenda driven fantasy.

Want to prove me wrong Dick Tracy? From your OWN WORDS, explain how what the Apostles were told … and what they understood … was “overlapping generations”. If you can’t do that …. what you believe is proved to be crap, by your inability to even explain it yourself.

“…. Meaning, apostates are correct while the faithful are mistaken.”? “You extrapolate from your agenda driven fantasies things not written. That’s why “overlapping generations”makes sense to you.

….. well, it’s a good thing that what is being done here is debate, not a quarrel, although it is rather interesting that you spend as much time as you do here “debating“, exclusively with Apostates. A point you seem to have missed is that if you disagree with what the Bible says and who God is, and the Christ, after having learned the Truth, you would be an apostate. if you agree with what the Bible says, and the truth about God in Christ, and disagree with current “new light” as advanced by the Governing Body, you would NOT be an apostate. You would be a heretic. …. there is a very real difference. A person who is NOT a heretic, when he SHOULD be … ignoring hard real world facts …. is an idol worshipper of the Governing Body. Which brings up the question, “Who then is the real apostate?” As Pogo once famously lamented, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

…. here following two downvotes is a pause for the deafening silence rebuttal ….

… and “… widely recognized” by who, exactly? Your phantom plethora of doppelgänger shills?

So Sherlock Holmes, why do you think that someone here might have have a reason for anger and hostility?

whooo Dick Tracy, ya think?1

when someone makes a point, instead of just “downvoting” it, which is silly … and when you downvote straight facts is both sad and ludicrous … why not reply with comprehensive counterpoints? If you do not like what someone is saying, refute it with what you think should have been said. Acting like a grumpy undervoltage A.I. sure makes you think you are scholarly and profound, but to everyone else except your doppelgänger shills it looks stupid.

Because if you are in a forum discussing “all things about open water SCUBA diving”, the fact that one of the contributors is a farmer, and goes into a dissertation about hog management may safely be considered extraneous fluff. Unless the hogs SCUBA dive ….. and perhaps not even then.

Good diversion, expertly done. Also irrelevant what “other folks” do or don’t do.

The Yellow Fogball Rules Of Debate: 1. Participants must recite their arguments in iambic pentameter to enhance the elegance of discourse. 2. Every point made must be accompanied by interpretive dance to emphasize its gravity. 3. Rebuttal arguments must be delivered while wearing an oversized prop hat for added credibility. 4. Participants must incorporate at least one random word from the Klingon language to showcase linguistic prowess. 5. Points can be countered with the power of interpretive mime, as long as it's conducted in complete silence. 6. If a debater quotes Shakespeare, opponents must reply in rhyming couplets for the remainder of the debate. 7. The use of airhorn sound effects is permitted only during particularly compelling arguments. 8. A gong will be struck to signal the end of a participant's turn, creating an air of ritualistic finality. 9. A designated "metaphor meter" will gauge the complexity of metaphors used, awarding extra points for obscurity. 10. During the final statements, participants must whisper their conclusions to convey an air of introspective wisdom. And most important, 11. It’s not permitted to put rocks in the fogballs.

So… you start. You know …. you CAN BUY a yellow highlighter to check your own fantasies before you publish them.

It’s a joke, the book doesn’t really exist, and if you were anything but a humorless stain on the soul of humanity you would know that intuitively. …. and yes, it is ad hominem, but it is not an attack, merely an observation, and not a rebuttal to any debate statement you might have advanced.

Everything I have stated is a historical, independently checkable hard fact. Everything you have stated, Eric, is agenda based opinion. That’s why you cannot defend it if you separate fact from opinion. That’s why your bloviating rebuttals are only fogballs. …. as close to nothing that can be.

What happened Eric, dog ate your yellow marker? Commentators, whoever “they” are, know what are hard facts and what is agenda driven opinion. If not immediately clear THEY have a printer and a yellow highlighter to separate what is fact from what is fiction. It is very easy to do, and painfully obvious. That is why you will not do it.

We call this debate “ Perry Mason and The Case of Dried Out Highlighters”.

.The problem when asked to highlight irrelevant crap in your rebuttal ( no pun intended ….) is it may take a LOT of highlighters!

Which of course is the only rebuttal ya got! At least we now know you HAVE a yellow highlighter. Be a sport …. use it as suggested.