Pudgy

Loosely speaking, Srecko is my template for the character Vic Vomodog, sort of a Wily E. Coyote figure who lurks in wait of any comment about anything and converts it into yet another attempt to catch the Road Runner. Thus far, Road Runner thwarts him every time, but we do not know what tomorrow will hold. If we did, the gag would have lost its enduring appeal long ago. Vic’s perpetual attacks on the faith are not logically consistent, but I don’t worry about it because neither are Srecko’s. Anything that comes up—how can it be used against the faith? Nevermind if it is consistent with prior criticisms.
It probably never would have occurred to me but for reflection upon the inane, ‘hehehe )))))))’ he used to append to comments, ceasing the practice only after Nana Fofana (who does not appear to be here any more) began imitating the style so mercilessly, even meanly overacting a chopped style that stems from English being a second language, that he could endure it no more.
Oh, yeah: hehehe ))))))). How can one not think of Wily E. Coyote cooking up another scheme with some Acme products?

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.
It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’
Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 
Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.
And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.
All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.
The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.
Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.
But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.
Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.
 

Without again copying @Pudgy’s cartoon, which reveals a certain — ahem—cynicism of social media that leans left, which is practically all of it . . .
the founder of the BITE model that is used to recognize ‘cults’ is very political, active on Twitter (sigh…X) and invariably comes down on the left side of most (if not all) issues. He has a book out called, ‘The Cult of Trump.’ It could be argued that when you think half the country has fallen victim to a cult, it is evidence that you have drunk too much of the KoolAid yourself.
BITE stands for all methods of ‘control,’ behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional. Ironically, nobody seeks to control information like many of these social media companies, going so far as to ban large swaths of communication, and those who engage in them, on the grounds of being ‘misinformation.’
I read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk.  He described the latter as very enamored with Asimov’s three laws of robotics—but also very concerned that most of his competitors are not. He has developed a feud with one of the Google heads (Page or Brin, I forget which), who has accused him of being a ‘specist.’ (one who favors his species) They used to be tight.
‘Um yeah, I kind of like humanity,’ says Musk, accounting for why he is fond of Asimov’s laws. He is in the minority. Most of these other guys want to let AI rip, go where it goes, go as fast as it can be developed, and if it one day outsmarts and outmaneuvers humans, swatting them as one might swat a bug that gets in your way, well—that’s evolution for you, survival of the fittest.

This is true of Isaac Asimov, who died of AIDS from a blood transfusion. I discovered this in writing up a post about him. It wasn’t widely known—his family hushed it up. And it was not acquired until his later years. All the same, it’s not a nice way to go, it probably shaved a dozen or more years from his life, and who knows what he might have written in that time:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/isaac-asimov-an.html

Not surprising …. in any organization where there is plenty of Free money and the only competency test is “good intentions”, liberal scum will rise to the top. 
I betcha Job’s three companions originally came over for a free meal.

Not surprising …. in any organization where there is plenty of Free money and the only competency test is “good intentions”, liberal scum will rise to the top. 
I betcha Job’s three companions originally came over for a free meal.

Writing with professional terminology requires special knowledge on the part of the reader, i agree. In the case of WTJWorg, the reading should be simplified by a vocabulary that does not use phrases and sentence forms that are unclear to a normal, averagely educated person. Of course, WTJWorg is susceptible, prone to the low education level of its members because they "hate" so-called higher education. But the society is not averse to seeking and hiring (free labor) lawyers to defend them in court. WTJWorg even pay their school fees to attend university so that they can later use it for some  morally questionable and dishonest actions.
All in all, simplicity is the key to a happier life, you're right. But is "simplicity" in theology as offered by WTJWorg the way to truth? 
Was the medical explanation offered by the organization in several versions simple enough for the "normal" JW? So the Society discourages "higher education" and then dares to interpret what blood is and what blood is not. And then it sets up hospital committees elders to explain to JW patients what is acceptable and what is not, not realizing that they often do not even know what they are explaining or why they are explaining it that way.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience?
With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience."
My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept.
It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

I think many people here would agree with the proposition that the Church of Covid for two years became the world’s fastest growing religion.
Instead of a cross or a star of David it was the mask that identified its believers.
My wife and I did not join that Church, did not wear masks except where required to get in a building, and did not take shots or boosters.
The fanaticism was rampant, and my wife was fired from her teaching job as she refused to be part of a school Covid research project.
She was treated like an anti- health dangerous criminal and cried a lot about it. I barely noticed.
We did wear masks to the KH when it opened up again, not because it was reasonable or rational, because it wasn’t … but because it was almost no trouble, and we had gotten used to masks at the Golden Corral, as well as those silly blue plastic gloves on one hand.
Covid is airborne. Covid on your hands is digestable.
So … what if …. what if wearing masks actually INCREASED your risk of infection …. hmmmm?
Do you blame the Governments, the Church of Covid, the School Boards, or … who? for increased unnecessary sicknesses and cripplings, and deaths?
Ya gotta blame SOMEBODY!
Or … you improvise, adapt, and overcome the basic limitation … if you can … that all living things are subject to:
”STUFF HAPPENS”
Sometimes getting sucker punched kills you … sometimes you loose a few teeth … and sometimes it’s a swoosh and a miss.
”STUFF HAPPENS”
That’s the way the real world works. If you are stupid, it tries to kill you. 
This is known as … ”normal”
That’s why I like Indiana Jones Movies …. when the Nazis make their appearance, nobody has to explain the plot to me.
We all take turns standing up for rightous principles, and we all take turns being unbelievably stupid.
I cracked up when i learned the President’s wife, Jill Biden, a card carrying, mask wearing  member of the Church of Covid, with three covid shots snd two booster shots, got covid TWICE!
Like being crushed by a toppled cast iron statue in the lobby, I appreciate irony.
 

The reason it is self-condemning is because it is no longer about the sacredness of blood … it’s about the sacredness of money.

Yes. No doubt about that.
"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment."
"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him".
 

I am sorry you had to go through this. 
I think this must have been some time ago, and perhaps not in the US? If I'm not mistaken, with small children, and children under the age of consent, the decission about blood is taken out of the parents hands by the court, and the HLC elders will not encourage the parents to fight it but to go along with it. I was told this by a HLC elder.
With regard to children who are of the age of consent the doctors will leave the decission to them. 
Just a couple of years ago we had a young woman (she was just a few months shy of 18) in our congregation admitted to hospital with severe anemia. The doctors strongly recommend a transfusion as her numbers were dangerously low. Her father, an inactive Witness for some time, urged her to get a transfusion, but she stood her ground and refused. The doctors reluctantly cooperated with her because she was almost 18 and deemed it a waste of time to drag it through the court. Thankfully the doctors were able to bring her blood count back to normal. Today she is a healthy and happily married woman. All ended well. I think a lot of it had to do with the fad of not eating enough protein. All these young girls jump on the vegan bandwagon and the parents are not aware of just how dangerous it can be.
Of course this was a less serious case in that it was self induced anemia and not something caused by a disease. 
I do get TTH reasoning regarding the choice of treatment. Doctors cannot promise a cure, only perhaps a prolongment of life. Parents are usually given choices and of course recommendations. It is a very very difficult situation and I do not envy any parent who has to go through this. In a way I am glad the choice about blood has been taken out of the patents hands and who knows, maybe the elders on the HLC feel the same way. Certainly the elder I spoke with didn't seem to be upset by the fact....

Mine too. Maybe if I had the experiences you report I would feel as you do. I have had calamity in my life, but not that one.
Isn’t this your 6th or 7th mention of The Fugitive? Though there is tragedy in the world, those not immediate victims continue to go to the movies, to concerts, to plays, to read books, to surf the internet, until in Eliphaz’s words, ‘it becomes your turn.’ Maybe all such activity should end until there is no more pain, but it does not.

vaccinations?
Covid “shots”?
For the most part I agree with TTH, and I will not take blood or blood fractions “circa 1960” but you do make a good point MM. But then, people DO get Nobel Prizes for accidental discoveries, or conversely, like Barak Obama, who got a Nobel Prize for being black.
By the end of 1945 about 220,000 people had been killed by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus perhaps a million damaged for life.
Life is experimental. “Stuff Happens”. The result is ALWAYS the same … you die. 
I think, MM, your not attending meetings BECAUSE of the blood issue is a rationalism born of an entirely different motivation, but then again, i don’t care.
I recognize that for the long term best interests of the Japanese People, their defeat by atomic bombing was the best thing that could have happened to them.
The tree of freedom has to be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots … and innocent bystanders.
…. that’s the way reality works.
Life is experimental. “Stuff Happens”. The result is ALWAYS the same … you die. 
There are no exceptions.
 
 
 

Well, now that you’ve established your position in the pecking order, no.
You had me saying, ‘Oh, he’s not such a bad guy after all,’ until that line.

… just as an aside :
Every day globally thousands of lives are saved through the use of atomic energy comprehension and use. I am one of them.
Since 1945 perhaps 2 billion people.

Sam: "Yeah, that's right! I don't care! I'm not trying to solve puzzles here!"
Dr K: "Well, I am. And I just found a big piece!" Despite denials, he presents to me as a man on a mission.
 Nah. Overstated. If you cave on the issue or decide you can't conscientiously go along with it, you sit in the penalty box for a while until they let you out to resume the game. You do this even if you are firmly convinced the ref made a bad call.  As long as you don't cuss the ref out publicly or visibly offer him eyeglasses, he will let you back in.
"Ouch!! I'm not so sure about that call!" says Sportscaster Paul from the broadcast booth. They're sending Many Miles to the penalty box!! Oh, wow! It won't go well even with his temporary absence--he is one heckuva player, but--gasp! What's this? Many Miles is not heading to the box! He took off his skates, broke his stick, threw them at the ref, and is heading home! 'It is altogether a defeat that he has done this!'"
We overestimate our importance. If it wasn't them providing headship, it would be someone else who would also reveal human foibles. Get in that penalty box with Pudgy; he's there every time you turn around. He even puts himself there before the ref calls a penalty, and thus reminds me of my own daughter long ago, who responded to my wife's scolding  by putting herself in the corner unbidden.
 
That may be the greatest understatement of all time.

Are you sure that your banjo-strumming, ‘I’m just here to learn, to help, certainly not to settle any disputes’ persona is not just a ruse? It sure seems like you are trying to settle one here:
You might take into consideration that the teaching has, in all probability, saved far more lives than it has cost. This is because, here and there, courageous doctors have worked to accomomdate it. In doing so, they have both discovered and remedied previously unknown risks of transfusion. These remedies in turn have spread into the overall population, a thousand times more numerous than that of the Witnesses themselves. Seen in this light, it almost becomes a ‘no greater love’ situation—a small number die, many times more are saved.
It is hard to come to any other conclusion upon consideration of a 2008 New Scientist article, ‘An Act of Faith in the Operating Room,’ which reviews study after study and finds that, for all but the most catastrophic of cases, blood transfusions harm more than they help. The referenced ‘act of faith’ is not refusing a transfusion. It is giving one. I reviewed the article here:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2008/05/new-scientist-a.html
See how it criticizes common practices less than 20 years ago, such as giving patients a bit of blood after operation to ‘perk them up a little.’ It is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Having learned from this, progressive hospitals tighten the standards for transfusion, often simply by lowering the hematocrit level which once triggered one, often by making use when appropriate of safer blood substitutes, often by not simply ‘topping off the tank’ after operation, recognizing such a practice is both unnecessary and dangerous. They owe it all to Jehovah’s Witnesses. 
The above does not negate that some have died due to holding fast to their understanding of ‘abstain from blood.’ However, it could be argued that the overall world owes a great debt of gratitude to Jehovah’s Witnesses for putting them on the right track. Should not the Governing Body receive a Nobel Prize in medicine for the reform they have triggered?

I think what George 88 is trying to convey is the intricate tapestry of linguistic expression, with the ethereal notions of implication, and nuanced resonance entwining within the labyrinthine corridors of discourse, where the boundaries between what is implied and what is explicit blur into an enigmatic confluence of meaning.
The nebulous tendrils of implication, with their elusive nature, evoking semantic ambiguity that, while cloaked in the syntax of eloquence, remains perpetually suspended in the liminal realm of suggestion, eternally alluding to the unfathomable depths of interpretative intricacy.
The labyrinth of implied meanings intertwining with the cadence of linguistic expression, forming an enigmatic tableau where the subject, like a phantom, elusively navigating the convoluted corridors of insinuation.
That, or pushing his Agenda.

A standard technique for mass hypnosis.
AND … if you translate that into Latin, it makes you appear very smart … and noble.
“ Puto quid Georgius 88 significare conatur, perplexum esse linguae linguisticae peripetasmata, cum notionibus aethereis implicationis, et sonorum sonorum in labyrinthinorum corridora sermonis implicantis, ubi termini inter implicationem et explicitam labem in aenigmate. confluentem significatio.
Nebulosus claviculis implicationis, cum natura sua fallax, ambiguitatem semanticam evocans, quae, in syntaxi facundiae velata, perpetuo in limine suggestionis regni manet suspensus, aeternaliter alludens ad inscrutabilem profunditatem interpretativae intricationis.
Labyrinthus significationum implicatarum cum clausula locutionis linguisticae connexio, tabulam aenigmaticam efformans ubi subiectum, sicut phantasma, insinuationis perplexas corridores elusive navigans.
Id aut eius agenda”
Wah-de-do-dah!

My comments are more along the line of (paraphrased), “STUFF HAPPENS … get used to it!”.

Super written. What is more difficult to read and understand must be important. That's why WTJWorg has a "simple edition" to present the theological tangles as simple.

I think what George 88 is trying to convey is the intricate tapestry of linguistic expression, with the ethereal notions of implication, and nuanced resonance entwining within the labyrinthine corridors of discourse, where the boundaries between what is implied and what is explicit blur into an enigmatic confluence of meaning.
The nebulous tendrils of implication, with their elusive nature, evoking semantic ambiguity that, while cloaked in the syntax of eloquence, remains perpetually suspended in the liminal realm of suggestion, eternally alluding to the unfathomable depths of interpretative intricacy.
The labyrinth of implied meanings intertwining with the cadence of linguistic expression, forming an enigmatic tableau where the subject, like a phantom, elusively navigating the convoluted corridors of insinuation.
That, or pushing his Agenda.

I think what George 88 is trying to convey is the intricate tapestry of linguistic expression, with the ethereal notions of implication, and nuanced resonance entwining within the labyrinthine corridors of discourse, where the boundaries between what is implied and what is explicit blur into an enigmatic confluence of meaning.
The nebulous tendrils of implication, with their elusive nature, evoking semantic ambiguity that, while cloaked in the syntax of eloquence, remains perpetually suspended in the liminal realm of suggestion, eternally alluding to the unfathomable depths of interpretative intricacy.
The labyrinth of implied meanings intertwining with the cadence of linguistic expression, forming an enigmatic tableau where the subject, like a phantom, elusively navigating the convoluted corridors of insinuation.
That, or pushing his Agenda.

You misapplied my comment, because you didn't see where the thought was going. As it is, no religion has an insight into the complete essence/truth. All religions have good and bad doctrines. It's the same with WTJWorg. 
Can any JW guarantee with his life that any past and existing doctrine is the only correct one today and that there will be no change of doctrine?
Since we can say in advance with absolute certainty that WTJWorg theology will change and that there is no continuity in the rigour of their own teachings, despite the persistent claim that all WTJWorg teachings /past, present and future/ are firmly based on the Bible, what you believe and claim about the JW religion has no meaning or purpose. 
JWs do not believe in the evolution of the universe and life, but they are fanatical in believing that there is an evolution of JW theology (in JW vocabulary it is said "that the light shines brighter and brighter").
That's right, ......... but I wasn't implying anything you're implying.