TrueTomHarley
-
Posts
8,274 -
Joined
-
Days Won
417
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by TrueTomHarley
-
-
6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
Remember, unless you use approved words, in approved phrases, about approved ideas. using approved examples ... you will not be called on to give a comment.
Do you mean like the comments you make here? I can appreciate they might not bend over backwards to accommodate you.
Some of my comments at our Kingdom Hall are absolute zingers but because they unfailingly show good will and lack of grumbling over a meeting being "shut down" because only one elder could be present at a Book Study and that was not enough to "control" people (sheesh - it's a wonder they don't call the mental hospital to have you carted away for paranoia syndrome) they have never been passed over, save when the conductor is searching for new hands because I have commented twice already.
In fact, they actually empowered you. For they didn't merely ax a meeting. They replaced it with a Family Study' night over which you, as family head, preside. It is on the premise that you, as head, know specifically what your family will most benefit from, and can tailor your family study to that. There is no elder at all to monitor what you say at this meeting that you preside over and if there was and I found that I was the one assigned, I would immediately resign. I mean, who needs a death wish?
The contents of the "shut down" Book Study have been folded into the mid-week meeting, which itself has been rewritten to be more focused. Though people cry about everything under the sun here, I have never heard a cry over that - all agree the new format is an improvement. (having laid down the challenge, I am sure someone like Srecko will start to complain about it - hehehe :)))))
Plus it is obvious that you have saved plenty of 'gas,' and you pour it into graphics and complaints that you lodge here.
You would think that if someone does not want to be 'spoon-fed' - and no one fits that description more than you - they would rejoice over this major relinquishing of "control." If you just cry that you still want to be spoon-fed and not actually preside over your own program, then yes - I can see why you might bellow. But they are very serious about this Family Study - they highlight the importance of it often - it is not a folding up of the tent just because someone wants to tighten their grip. It is encouraging family heads to step up to the plate with their headship.
-
11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:
that's a control measure in the uncontrollable world of the internet.
In general, does 'uncontrollable' carry positive or negative connotations? Can you appreciate that they might not want to dive into it?
11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:Some brothers have been drawn into online debates and thus have brought added reproach on Jehovah’s name.
I have seen it. I try not to be Exhibit A.
11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:An online forum is not an appropriate setting for “instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed.”'
Have you found that it is?
11 hours ago, Noble Berean said:They don't want people having online discussions independent of the org,
You have it exactly backwards. They do want people having their discussions independent of them - don't drag their artwork or logos into it.
-
19 hours ago, Noble Berean said:
They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites.
No. They are fighting ones who reproduce it.
You can reference it all you want. You can quote their writings. It is in accord with "fair use" doctrine. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. It is not illegal and you can do it. But to reproduce it is illegal and you cannot do it. @admin in my eyes has elevated his stature to that of Solomon with his wise observation: "Geez, you guys are a piece of work."
Several verses speak against the futility of debates. Several verses say stay away from that. By allowing their copyrighted material to be reproduced by people who want to do just that, it gives the appearance than they themselves don't put stock in those verses.
19 hours ago, Noble Berean said:This article states that using trademark materials is flat-out wrong and their will certainly be an army of JWs who attack these ones (even though their intentions were pure).
They did say the first. They did not say the second. That is your own projection speaking. You qualify it by saying "even if their intentions were pure." Is there one person on this forum who would say his/her own intentions are not?
This is very close to the old churchy slogan that says "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere."
Admin takes first place for being a modern-day Solomon. My dad takes second place for his wise counsel when he was driving the family car on those seemingly endless trips of my childhood: "If you kids don't stop crying back there, I'll give you something to cry about!"
-
15 hours ago, admin said:
Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.
Admin so desperately wants to take his place among the Cooks, Schmids, and Bezos's. He strolls into the dining area at the Conference of Internet Magnificents and orders a scotch - stirred, not shaken. He casually mentions to the tuxedoed waiter the latest Alexa website traffic stats. "Fairly impressive, wouldn't you say?" rolls off his tongue.
The waiter laughs at him. "Offscouring of the earth! Religious crackpots, every one of them! Come back when you have someone that knows how to tie his shoe! Have a Diet Pepsi."
-
1 hour ago, Noble Berean said:
They clearly state that they are fighting "opposers" who reference JW content on their sites
As a purely practical matter, since said opposers drag them into courts and have succeeded in extracting some money, suing such opposers who reproduce their copyrighted material so as to malign it will soon make them richer than Apple, Google and Amazon combined.
Deprived of their sustenance, some of such opposers will be screaming louder than Demetrius.
-
27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
Then why do you think the Watchtower Society gave in, and did what he wanted?. Fear of men?
I think it is no more than going the extra mile.
-
20 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:
He was quoted accurately. He was not entitled to have the quote removed, much less anything further.
Exactly.
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
Actually, the fact that the Watchtower went the extra mile with this fellow undermines almost everything @Ann O'Maly says about them. She devotes a huge portion of her life painting them as villains. She throws it all away in a single post demonstrating that they are noble.
- Nana Fofana, Noble Berean and Melinda Mills
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
23 minutes ago, admin said:
If Watchtower Legal Dept. tells me to take something down that is their legal copyright I would immediately comply.
Of course. 'The sons of this system of thing are wiser in a practical way than are the sons of the light'
23 minutes ago, admin said:Geez.... You guys are a piece of work.
Um.....yeah But not all
-
This is not hard.
It is their material. They want to control its distribution. They have voiced no objection whatsoever to linking to their material. When you do this, it always remains obvious that it is theirs. @Anna
But if you reproduce it - pictures, logo, articles, anything from their art department - it suggests to the casual reader that you are them. And you are not. If you are a liar trying to misrepresent their work, the problem is obvious.
But even if you are a friend you should not suggest that you are them because each of us has his/her own hangups.
I can be crass and sarcastic. I like homeopathy. I comment on things political from time to time (they don't do it at all). If I do this on my own, I am okay. If I do it and include a link to something of theirs, I am okay. If I do it and reproduce the jw.org logo or some picture, I am not okay because I am suggesting I am them and that they identify with my views. The discerning reader will know it is not so, but not all readers are discerning. Most are not.
Many brothers on Facebook reproduce their artwork, thinking it is fine because they are faithful. They shouldn't. I won't say i have never done it before. I don't think I have ever done it here, but I have done it a handful of times on Facebook. I won't anymore.
Primarily, they are not 'laying down the law' for the vile people. The vile people will not listen to them anyway. They may have to be confronted legally. But it is more challenging to do this when every Tom Dick and Harry of a Witness is also reproducing their work, thinking it is okay because they are friends.
-
4 minutes ago, Arauna said:
Who had this experience you mentioned above?
It is mine. I never found them again. They were students and students come and go.
- DefenderOTT and Arauna
-
1
-
1
-
2 hours ago, Gone Fishing said:
Please clarify to stay on topic.
Well - sometimes topic is as fluid as gender is these days. Beef with me over gender and I will have your job, as though I was at the university. Same with topic.
2 hours ago, Arauna said:Working in the Muslim field
"When the four Muslim men invited me inside, I thought: ‘uh oh. Terrorists!’ But there was no real reason to think that, so I stepped inside and took the seat offered me on the couch. They were just four young men sharing an apartment; plenty of American-born students do the same. It was a pigsty; but then, so was my apartment when I was in school. (my wife inexplicably thinks that my study still is!) I started playing the ‘Why Study the Bible?’ video, but there was much chatter. They apologized for it; two of them were translating for the other two. I took the video back and replayed it in Arabic.
"They were astounded to read ‘Jehovah’ at Ps 83:18; “I have never seen this before,” one of them said. He certainly didn’t roll over and give up; he wanted me to read the Quran. “Not any Quran. A good one.” Mohammed is the prophet more recent than Jesus, he said. ‘Ah, but did he die for our sins?’ But the brother taking the lead in our area’s Arabic group said, with so many refugees absolutely fed up with the violence done in the name of God when all they want is simply to live in peace, that they just pass over any who want to argue in any way; they’ll bid them a good day, and move on. There’s just so many who are instantly drawn to the biblical teaching of a paradise earth. Maybe on the next go-round they’ll speak to the ideologues, but not now – and the current round is huge. It’s probably good, though, if you can let them know that the Bible’s teaching on God’s oneness and against idolatry squares with their own:
“The idols of the nations are silver and gold the work of human hands. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; Eyes, but they cannot see; ears they have, but they cannot hear. There is no breath in their mouth. The people who make them will become just like them, as will all those who trust in them.” (Psalm 135:15-18)
"When I return to these guys, before I go anywhere, I’ll point out how Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral and don’t vote. I’ve heard the terrorist argument that there are no innocent civilians in the West, since they the elect the leaders who go on to commit atrocious misdeeds." - Tom Irregardless and Me
-
16 hours ago, Arauna said:
This would mean that most of the PHDs done in the past 150 years are inaccurate!
This is why you do not squabble overmuch about 607 or anything else. 'Facts' are unstable building blocks that can be fashioned into palaces or outhouses. You don't blow 607 off as nothing, but neither do you let it spoil your day. Focus on the facts on the ground.
The dispute will be like the food pyramid that stands for decades and is literally turned upon its head. It will be like the generation avoiding fat because the scientists said so only to find that businesspeople had bought science and sugar is the culprit. It will be even be like the mathematical proof that the sum of all natural numbers is -1/12. Or that black holes violate either relativity or quantum physics.
It is the heart one must work to develop, not the head. For every Bible verse there is about the head, there are ten about the heart. Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of focusing on the heart is that people cannot argue themselves right! - gutting the underpinnings of many a forum.
- Nana Fofana and Arauna
-
1
-
1
-
2 minutes ago, Sektenkult said:
there is somebody in town who never heard about the Australian royal comission?
We cannot reinvent the wheel forever because you are too lazy to come up to speed. Several threads are dedicated to this. Find one and comment on it. Try not to repeat what has already been said.
-
1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:
. Usually I would respond with 2 Tim.3:3 where the "critical times" are charcterised by men "having no natural affection" as this would often be an element in the occurence of "children having children"
I like this. Never tell someone he is wrong. Redirect his remarks to acknowledge that he makes a good point.
-
-
On 3/8/2016 at 6:09 AM, Chaz T. Razzle said:
Fact is active jehovahs witnesses love seeing disfellowshipped ones. They love looking down on them from a high seat of judgement and prejudice.
Come now, Chaz. Get a grip.
-
There are several new kids in town.
-
2 hours ago, Arauna said:
He intervened with a flood for instance when his purpose could have been thwarted by Satan and his demons. He also intervened at Babylon with languages - he had very good reasons for doing so. He intervened with a dream when the parents of Jesus fled to Egypt
He tried to intervene on this forum, too, but he found he couldn't mix it up more than it already was.
- Malum Intellectus and Arauna
-
1
-
1
-
1 hour ago, Gone Fishing said:
That's an insult to kids!
Sometimes kids need a bit of soap for the mouth.
-
-
On 12/26/2017 at 2:57 AM, Sektenkult said:
That is wonderful! Maybe the jw.borg hasnt to sell so many kingdumb halls...so we can say, the jehovahs shitnesses sold their congress hall
There's a new kid in town.
-
43 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:
Forced to reinvent his team on a tight budget, Beane will have to outsmart the richer clubs.
The cool things about recruiting Jehovah's Witnesses is that they work free.
43 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:recruiting bargain players that the scouts call flawed, but all of whom have an ability to get on base, score runs, and win games
You gotta admit, there is a parallel.
The movie was on pause when I posted last, so my wife could make popcorn which we will throw my daughter's dog a few kernels.
You would like it even without knowing about the game
- Noble Berean and Nana Fofana
-
2
-
58 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:
But amazingly unskilled, considering!
Odd. I am right now watching the movie Moneyball with my wife who likes it.
-
1 hour ago, Witness said:
Who is our only source of protection? God.
Listen to Witness, @Nana Fofana She is the one who knows the way to God. She will help you. (Gen 1:1-Mal 4:6, Matt 1:1-Rev 22:21)
The letter she is simply beside herself to share - so excited! - is dismissed by Rabbi Michael Berenbaum, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, as inconsequential. It is dated 1933.
The infant Nazi government had just emerged and Witnesses tried to reassure it that they were apolitical and not a threat. It is no more sinister than that. Later, the regime would show its true colors and Witnesses faced the greatest evil of modern times.
1 hour ago, Witness said:the GB has a mission – to wipe out God’s anointed ones – the “firstfruits”.
Um - the Librarian may flag me for this, but....I can almost hear the sirens from the State Hospital.
.jpeg.15eb3c27aa05a7069ed28875e4614b07.jpeg)
Tom Preaches To Muslim Men
in Topics
Posted
Yikes! How did this happen? Here I am at the head of a new thread I did not start, and you-know-who lodges the first three comments trying to stir up mischief. Ah, well. The theme is okay - though it is not my specialty and I have no plans to add to it. (Besides, it is a plug for an excellent ebook authored by (blush) well, you know)
I was speaking generally. Witnesses are politically neutral. Voting is not necessarily the same, though there is overlap. I suspect that the more the issue is "Do you want the new storm sewer to run down your street or don't you?" the more likely brothers are to vote. But even there it is a rarity. There are several hot local issues around here that friends know of and will be affected by and community meetings have been held to discuss them. I even attended one. But I have heard of no brother getting all cranked up over it or wanting to weigh in.
You rail on about how the GB wants to control everything and how they may or may not "allow" something, and then you quote an article that establishes the exact opposite:
Actually, I remember this article. It had just come out and I was visiting my one Bethel pal who has reached breathtakingly high positions at Bethel since, though I have not seen him in decades and am maybe just making it up. I commented to him then something to the effect of 'so, we vote now, do we?' The next day he came across the article himself. 'I thought you were kidding,' he said.
If memory serves, there was also something about a wife voting because an unbelieving husband insisted upon it, and the matter of relative subjection.
So yes, apparently some Witnesses have voted. But I know of no instance in my 40+ years. Any political reference from me (I do sometimes make them) generally earns me the fish-eye. I have discovered there are a few who have thought me too political because when brothers have repeated what they hear on the news that Trump is stupid and racist and vain and hates everyone under the sun, I have said 'I kind of like the guy,' just because I hate to see a hit job.
I don't argue the merits or demerits of anything political and I take it seriously that some might think it of me and so I lay low even more - you do not disturb the peace of the congregation over such things. However, for many of our people, even knowing about politics is enough to be seen taking part in them.
Okay? I go off on a spiel here to show how we are over political matters. If anything, I am the one who is 'out there.' Yet I have never voted in my life. Apparently a few have or do. But I have never personally heard of it.