TrueTomHarley

Celebrate your birthday, then.

I used to LITERALLY stumble over my cat, the stupid thing. Finally I bought it a one-way bus ticket to Boise, Idaho. And on birthdays, Shiwii, what happens if you do a search on the website or app? (JTR: Want your dog back?)

Search for more recent materials explaining birthdays. They play down the beheading references, which were possibly overused.

I am not even willing to accede the moral high ground to these anti-pedophile zealots. Let them claim some progress before we do that. They have succeeded in shaming people, punishing many, and wallpapering the world with sex registry lists. Let them attain some progress in stopping child abuse before we rush to proclaim them heroes. Though not parallel in all respects, the following is parallel in more ways than not: Nobody claims victory over drugs because many dealers and users have been sent to jail. Instead, they realize that taking out a drug dealer clears the way for ten waiting to take his place. They realize that ever more potent drugs are being devised, and ever more ways to ensnare people. They don’t crow that they are stopping drug abuse; instead, they realize they’re getting their heads handed to them on a platter. So far, pedophilia is following the same pattern as drug abuse. Ever more sordid and vicious forms are being devised. Persons respected, in various walks of life, are continually being exposed, yet they simply are replaced by others. Those who must track child sexual abuse online in the course of their job describe it as Medusa – one look and it turns you to stone. Moreover, the fight against pedophilia is mostly confined to monied lands. Few care in non-monied lands, as you pointed out. It is ever like the zealots of this world to charge around loudly, point fingers everywhere, punish some, shame others, and then, on the basis of their good intentions alone, claim victory. Let them actually achieve victory before we hail them as modern saviors. Let them come to grips with the causes of pedophilia. In a world that relentlessly pushes sex into ever expanding frontiers, crossing same-sex lines, encouraging lifestyles of multiple, ever changing lovers, embracing sexual activity of kids at ages younger and younger, hailing new exciting sexual positions and methods, it is unlikely to find success declaring every form of sex fine and wonderful except ONE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! The best defense will be the continual Bible training at the Kingdom Hall to keep yourself clean of every sort of fleshly defilement, to be had from the one religion training its members to properly integrate sexuality into their personalities – as neither the focus or life nor something to be frowned upon in its proper context. Ones of that religion should be portrayed as the heroes in this drama (even if flawed), never the villains.

Nice as it is to see our literature cart on the scene, it would have been nicer still to have seen the terrorist leafing through a magazine, stroking his chin thoughtfully, and then snipping the wire on his bomb suit and walking home, magazine in hand.

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?] It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not. Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that.

Who doesn't? Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed. (just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

It's an olive branch. I'll take it. I'm not always kind to you. Thank you.

In the aftermath of Manchester, if words can be called refreshing, surely "evil losers" fits the bill. As Trump says, you don't call them monsters; they will like that designation. These are not people who look at themselves in the mirror and gasp: "what have I become?" Nor do you call them 'cowards.' To give your life in support of a cause, any cause, is the very opposite of cowardly. Nor do you carry on about ‘senseless violence.’ If your goal is to kill people, it makes perfect sense. Nor do you carry on ineffectually about how "we will not change our way of life because that is what they terrorists want." I suspect they do not want that at all; what they want is for people to continually prance around openly like bowling pins, easy to knock down. Surely if you say such inane things about not changing your way of life, you should acknowledge that it is at the cost of funding 100 cops in riot gear, whereas one with a baton used to suffice. In their quest to undermine the President, I half expect journalists to turn critical of his label, describing it as 'judgmental', 'knee-jerk,' or juvenile. There's only so much you can do with rhetoric. But I'll take it over what we've had to hear in the past any day. I like "evil losers" also because it doesn't pretend to have a handle on the problem, as some other responses have. Banal remarks about not succeeding in the fight to change a way of life implies that terrorists are merely a nuisance we all must bear, like mosquitoes. Of course, what can never be addressed is how easy it is today to transform people into evil losers. And how, if you succeed in taking one out, there are ten in the wings waiting to take his place. Or, when mighty nations are bombing the snot out of weaker ones, how easy it is to turn on the citizens of that nation, thinking them not so innocent after all, since they vote into office the ones who order the bombing.

Wow! I won't do that again! Look, we are on the same team, and all. Moreover, you have been places I have not. And I agree with your general sentiment that In both my books, I deliberately take on controversial matters. In my second book (No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) ["He's plugging his books again!" shrieks the Librarian, falling off her chair and landing on her fat keister. "After I ordered him not to!"] I describe at some length two greatly flawed persons, with names changed. One, an elder like Diotrophes, who bullied the elder body and plotted to kill his wife so that he could marry his girlfriend without suffering discipline, and two: a man who placed his hand on a teen's rear end and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed exile out of remorse. He had run away from a foster home at 16 and spent 20 years traveling with a carnival before coming into the truth; he was terrified at slipping back into what he had one been. At a time when everyone was doing high speed internet, he refused more than a slow dial-up connection, necessary for his business, so he would not instantly fall victim to internet porn. He may have masturbated himself to death, but he did not revert to what he had been. Okay? I don't shy from controversy. Besides, I like you. If you are 'out there' in some ways, so am I. Even so.....having said that....it's amazing what you choose to spill. Surely the same GB member who told you of certain doings also told you about Proverbs 11:13. Clearly, there is something 1 Corinthians 5: 1-8esqe about your posting this here. So there's my rebuke. I'm uncomfortable giving rebukes to a brother, for it isn't my place. But please don't squawk about it overmuch - you know you have it coming. A little squawking is okay, if need be, since I speak without the knowledge a counselor should always have; namely, I know neither you nor your history and I might speak differently if I did. But don't carry on too much. Now, if the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. What can we do with it? Perhaps it is not such a bad thing after all to have aired things. Since it is not child abuse, it doesn't belong in a thread devoted to child abuse. If we are to discuss all our slimeballs, then everyone else must, too, and they are not - because the topic is something else. Not only is 'homosexual tendencies' vague, open to much interpretation (I am cautious here, for fear you will next post 8X10 glossies) but, again, he doesn't belong in a thread about pedophilia. Frankly, in the world's eyes, he becomes a heroic victim, his 'true sexuality' repressed by a homophobic organization - oh, yeah, I can hear the gears turning now in the murmurers' minds. So we are down to three. I heard once about Greenless, but not the other. However, 'accused' is different than 'established.' With President Duarte's complaint, we were speaking of abuse that is frequently - some would say usually - rape. On the other hand, the person in my book would be put on the sex registry list today, but he plainly was not a threat to anyone - it is only the predators you need keep track of, otherwise you will keep track of damn near everybody, for it seems there are few who have not, at some point in their lives, touched a child inappropriately. (and if what you allege to have happen happened at Bethel, then it happened with young men, not children, and thus, was not 'child abuse,' even if innappropriate. It's most unlikely that abuse accusations here remotely approach the gravity of the Church leaders. Lastly, we come to Firstly, I accept you as a truthful source. Having said that, I am in no position to verify matters so my acceptance cannot be taken without a grain of salt. And I'm not saying that the above is great, but come on! We are contrasting this with serial rapists in the Church! And while perhaps the 80+ year old was 'getting off,' perhaps he was not. When I was in a health club years ago, it was not unusual for guys to sit in the sauna naked after a workout - I honestly don't remember it I ever did or not; I think I probably did. Guys his age will remember the YMCA, where boys and men routinely swam together naked; I remember that well as a child, and he probably had 30 years on me. Moreover, not all in the sauna were naked. Some in the sauna were "semi-naked." Do you ever find anyone fully clothed in the sauna? When you go to the beach, aren't they semi-naked there? And what about the pervert Michelangelo, who sculpted 'David?' And aren't ALL art students - aren't they all perverts, for they have all painted nude models? Look, many people consider the human body beautiful. What about tattoo artists? In a reflective manner, I once asked one whether, when they are tattooing intimate areas, they get a charge out of it, or is it just art. "It's art!" he told me indignantly. What about nudist colonies? Are they all perverts? When my homeschooling wife made high-ranking friends in the school system, one of them asked her to join his group where they would swim...um, you know...naturally. Nudist colonies are frequented by entire families, including the children. There is mass hysteria here is what I'm saying. All 'abuse' is not the same, and some is abuse only in the eye of the person determined to see it that way. It's why Economist Magazine advised in April, or was it August? - it was an A month - of 2009 that we should all get a grip on ourselves. Only ten percent of those on the sex registries pose any significant threat to the public. All the rest are better handled (my point, not theirs) through parental training such as is encouraged in the Caleb and Sophia series. There! Much ado about little, in my estimation. I did not say it was obscene for commissions to examine any accusation of abuse that they see fit to examine; that's what commissions do. But I continue to hold that it is obscene not to slap down anyone who would attempt to equate abuse in Jehovah's organization with abuse in the general religious world. After all, unlike most religions, our spiritual bread and butter emphasizes keeping ourselves morally chaste. Surely, some of that training sticks and gives us a leg up on persons who don't receive it.

Is he the one who did the 360 degree spiral jump over a river in an AMC Hornet?

The President of the Philippines was interviewed recently by the Russian Times.And boy oh boy, did he ever unload: MF: Can I ask you a personal question, please? Two years ago, you shocked the media by revealing that you had been molested by a priest when you were 14 or 15 years old. And later, you even identified that priest. He was an American national. RD: Yes. Not only I – the whole class. Two generations up and two generations down. All of us. MF: You were 70 years old at that time. Why would you make that confession more than 50 years later? RD: I said this because of the penchant to keep silent. The abuses of the priests had been filmed everywhere. There was an Italian underground film – I’m sure you saw that – priests were running naked there. And they don’t really bother to investigate. There is no condemnation. Nothing. They show the priests and the religious people doing shenanigans, but it is seen just as part of the show of the night. Is it liberality? Is it because you don’t want to condemn your own countrymen? Or is it because the victims were just natives? Never mind about them. We were considered natives. And sometimes pictured as apes. In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

When you come right down to it, do absolutes ever apply to entire populations? In any group consisting of millions, you will find many examples of anything. It is enough to focus on the preponderance of evidence, the overall pattern, the forest - even when discussing individual trees.

Between these carefully chosen comments and the ellipses the Gazette includes the following paragraph. "This is of course a hopelessly romantic view of the world we are idealizing the past, and over-dramatizing our own circumstances. The 20th century is certainly no worse than the 13th for mass slaughter, nor than the ancient empires for regimentation." Gazette 11 Nov 1976 Talk about dishonest! The former remarks are what the columnists actually said. The latter are that of someone attempting to deflate them. You could have written them yourself. Here are some more 1914 comments from persons who were there, not from revisionists looking back: 1.) "Those who have an adult's recollection and an adult's understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed." Benjamin J. Anderson (1886-1949), Economics and the Public Welfare 2.) We read "Historic events are often said to have 'changed everything.' In the case of the Great War [1914-1918] this is, for once, true. the war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the postwar world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before." A World Undone, by G J Meyer, (2006) 3.) Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.—British statesman Harold Macmillan, New York “Times,” November 23, 1980 4.) Civilization entered on a cruel and perhaps terminal illness in 1914.” Frank Peters, St. Louis “Post-Dispatch January 27, 1980 5.) In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them. The Economist,” London, August 4, 1979 6.) The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since. Dr. Walker Percy, “American Medical News,” November 21, 1977 7.) Thoughts and pictures come to my mind, . . . thoughts from before the year 1914 when there was real peace, quiet and security on this earth—a time when we didn’t know fear. . . . Security and quiet have disappeared from the lives of men since 1914. German statesman Konrad Adenauer, 1965 8.) In 1914 the world, as it was known and accepted then, came to an end.” James Cameron (the historian, not the movie-maker) 1959 9.) Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and pre-determined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin. They see the human race, like the hero of a Greek tragedy, driven on by angry gods and no longer the master of fate. Bertrand Russell, New York “Times Magazine,” September 27, 1953 10.) More and more historians look back upon World War I as the great turning point of modern history, the catastrophic collapse which opened the way for others, perhaps the final one. Professor D. F. Fleming, Vanderbilt University: 11.) World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality...Alan Greenspan 12.) When, in far off Serbia, an archduke was assassinated, it seemed such a faraway incident - nothing that concerned us. ...And than suddenly one morning it had happened. England was at war.' Agatha Christie 13.) Charlie Chaplin's autobiography ('My Autobiography') has a very interesting account about the first world war and how it changed the world and people. He said something like that people lost their basic virtues and never got them back. Sure, contemporary people whose main goal is to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses will say "all things today are exactly as from Creation's beginning." That's why its good to read up on persons who aren't trying to pooh-pooh it from afar for devious or lazy motives - persons who lived through the change.

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.' But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman' and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today. So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track. In 2007, Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..." We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions. With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical. Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

It is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing, and it should not be spun any other way. The way to avoid such messy critiques is to preach to the congregation on Sunday and let that be the end of it. It's up to them what they do with it. That way, if somewhere down the line a member of a religion is busted for child abuse, leaders can truthfully say, like Sergeant Shultz, 'I know notttthhhhiiiiiiiinnnngg!' Let them come to consume religion, and no more. Give no thought to disciplining congregants who misbehave. Construct matters so that you never know about these ones. Fail in your duty to God to produce for him a people spirituality and morally clean. Tell Him: "What you see is what you get. It's not my problem.' Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out. Nobody else cares about Scriptural direction to maintain cleanliness as a congregation. Nobody else has a clue what their members are up to. When cops nab an abuser, their religion is never reported because few imagine that today's religions should result in clean people; it's not their job. Only Jehovah's Witnesses take it upon themselves to insist upon clean people. For the most part, former Witnesses who are now enemies and who push this narrative for all it is worth were disciplined at one time for one thing or another, and are livid over it. It's no more complicated than that.

“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.” From ‘Who is Leading God’s People Today?’ Pgr 12, February 2017 That's not to say they have erred in the matter under discussion. It is a translating decision that they have provided abundant justification for in the attached appendix.

Is 'the news' another one of those mountains that are melting these days? It was only - what - two? three? years ago that if you read something in 'the news,' it was valid. (unless it was being spun by official liars) Given the new reality that reading news is playing Russia roulette, I'll take the Trump story, fake though it may be. Okay, he didn't speak out against the Russian ban of Jehovah's Witnesses. But the story plants the clear notion that he should. Now it is only a matter of time before some poor body of elders must deal with NBC or someone trying to set up shop in their foyer so that they can broadcast "Live from the Kingdom Hall."

The three eventualities of a tossed coin: heads, tails, and sides Footprints of a man with a cane Footprints of a dog with an amputated leg. Bob Guzzie's fingers, after that buzz saw accident. Bob Guzzie's eyes, after that overhead comet mutated another one for him Positive numbers, negative numbers, and imaginary numbers. The four corners of the earth, after one was scraped off by the passing comet that made trouble for Bob The Beatles after John died, but before George did. A car with a flat tire. The three lug nuts you hope will keep the repaired wheel on because you lost one of them The Pentagon after 911 The Pleades on an overcast night. The carbon atom, the very building block of life, capable of four strong bonds, after the entire lot of them was run over by a steamroller.

Neither do they (now).

There must be a scripture somewhere insulting the sea. If there is not, there should be. Rochester, my home town, is not on the sea and has no beef with it, but it sure does with the lake. Lake Ontario is a mini-sea in its own right. Along with the four other Great Lakes, it constitutes one fifth of the earth’s fresh water supply. People have built homes on the shores of the lake, figuring that where the lake is, the lake is. Why would you not? But this year, the lake level is two feet higher than normal. Imagine! The entire lake! Let some math nerd figure out the volume increase – it shouldn’t be hard. Actually, the idea appeals to me, except I’m lazy. Give it to some kid for homework or let him bring it to class for extra credit. When a boat sails by, those people on the shore sweat. They do so even more some when a wind kicks up. Even in calm times, the water is lapping up against their foundations. Their beach as disappeared and their decks are submerged. The beach about which I wrote “Horses in Water’ no longer exists. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2006/09/horses_in_water.html The government is passing out sandbags and sand to fill them with. Volunteers appear to help the beach dwellers out. My experience is that sandbags are okay for a day or two or modest rise, but not for much else. The lake level is supposed to be high – it is still rising – all season. Why don’t they drain the lake? someone asks. Just open up the St. Lawrence river more and let that stuff drain out to the sea. Unfortunately, people live along the river, too. An entire city is there, Montreal Canada, and they are seriously flooded as it is. To drain 1 inch of water from Lake Ontario will result in a rise of 10 inches for Montreal and other river dwellers. “Go for it, anyway!” say the besieged lakeshore dwellers, but Canada says ‘no.’ They’re funny that way.

I like this. The scoundrels will always try to muddy the waters in hopes you will eventually say "Ah, the hell with it - let them have it their way!" The answer is as Bill Clinton said: KISS (keep it simple, stupid.) I also like the observation I read in a Watchtower somewhere: 'The scriptures that can be used to refute the trinity were not written for that purpose.' I like to focus on what they were written for. I won't spend much time with trinitarians. If possible, they are more persistent than apostates in arguing. They will not give up and many of them make provisions in their wills for someone to take over in the event they should drop.

For whatever it's worth, this book never interested me. Maybe it is too much focus on the trees at the risk of obscuring the forest. Frankly, JTR's comment makes sense to me, even if not technically 'fair.' So closely do certain things resemble each other, prove that it is not true.

He spins it pretty convincingly, in my estimation. Surely, that is too many. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some poor to crush and faces to grind, I'm sorry, Witness. I just can't take it seriously. It's too snarky to suggest that therapy is in order but - c'mon!

Possibly they are worried about what you might do with it.