TrueTomHarley

I don't think many have. I don't buy the model. I think it causes people to give up too easily once they find their spouse is not the soul mate they thought he/she was. Love is a muscle - think agape love - that grows as you exercise it. Having done so, it makes both of you better persons.
Of course, you do not stack the odds against you. You start with the most compatible person you can find. But the success rate for arranged marriages is greater than that of soul-mate ones, which argues against the latter. 
http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/09/love-marriage-and-soulmates.html

the thing is, i accomplished four tasks with that post:
1) friendly missive to you
2) slam at @AlanF, always a breath of fresh air
3) decriminalize my demerit from the Librarian and turn it into a virtue
4) plug my book
 

Allen, let me suggest that you use the ground rules here to improve your communicating skills. I mean it sincerely. You will only help yourself by doing it. As for me, I would really hate to see you gone, because when you are on, you are on! You post heavy stuff that occurs to no one else, and I value you for it. 
Even if you think it unjust, roll with it if you can. It really doesn't matter if it is unjust or not. Life is unjust, and Paul would have us use the reversals of life as 'discipline' which, if we reject, we are you-know-whats and not children.
You have alluded to dyslexia. Maybe it is but the tip of the iceberg. Maybe there are other factors that affect your emotional control, for you do launch some zingers sometimes. All of us are packages. Only AlanF is a disembodied brain unimpeded by emotion. Work on your delivery if you can because you have some fine stuff and I want to see you continue offering it.
Not long ago, I was given a disciplinary point for addressing @AlanF as a blithering idiot. I deserved it. I will take it in stride. I would not over-dramatize it because AdamF must have 100 of them, so they must be meaningless in themselves. I consider it a check, as in chess. It will benefit me to study it with a view of preventing a checkmate. 
Is the @The Librarian being especially hard on me? I don't go there. It doesn't matter if she is or not. She is helping me, whether she knows it or not, to improve my writing, and for this I am grateful. In not too long, I will release the ebook about Russia that I have been working on. Much of it was written here. At times, I already had stuff written, and I replaced it with material here - forged from the experience of explaining things before people who I know are going to try to shoot it down.
Even if she was hard on you or me, it could be for a good motive. Witnesses have more or less sworn to communicate in a Christlike manner. Alan and crew renounced kindness long ago, so it may be that he is allowed 20 times the abuse as you or I. 
It is hard for me communicating with Alan because if I say "Help me out here. There is an expression: "______ happens" and I cannot think of the word' - everyone here will know I am joking. Except Alan. He will mock me for not knowing the word. Then when he learns I was just putting him on, he will call me a 'reprehensible liar,' which he has done - an epithet considerably stronger than 'blithering idiot' in that it imputes motive. This pretty much happened recently with pengajo, which I deliberately misspelled wondering if I could trigger his insatiable 'need' to correct. Like hooks in the jaw, it worked. You cannot do any play on words with him! Such as:
THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO USE DISCERNMENT!!!!! YOU SHOULD PLAINLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH FACTS. I HATE TO THINK WHAT ALAN WOULD CALL YOU IF YOU WERE NOT ALREADY ON THE SAME PAGE.
It is what it is, Allen. View it as discipline from which you can benefit. I miss you when you are gone.
 
 

For the record, Ann, when I reproduced FakeJW's words, I did not edit out his specific reviling of you. Perhaps I should have. I apologize for that. One gets carried away sometimes.
("kumquat": better wash that mouth of yours out with soap! see what you have unleashed?)

I'll get a lot of mileage out of this one. @AlanF will pounce on every single word. And I'll paste him over each one, the opinionated oaf.
Look, we have destroyed JWI's thread and he has started another one. I messaged him that (tentatively) I would not go there. I would not have gone here except that Alan is so obnoxious that he draws people in. He's been the ruin of many a poor boy, and Lord I know I'm one. Ann and many others make parallel points on the subject, but because they are all reasonably civil, nobody feels they must do battle with them.
I have learned my lesson. (tentatively) I will not mess with JWI's other thread. (probably) @The Librarian is right. You can't destroy every thread by kicking every dog that barks at you. Not if you want to get very far. Rodney King said it best: 'people, can't we all just get along?' The Beatles said it second best: we must 'come together.'
This thread is a goner, and it will die a quick death if no fuel is heaped on. But there is yet (some) hope for JWI's new thread. Let know one trample upon it, at least not for 42 months.

I'll get a lot of mileage out of this one. @AlanF will pounce on every single word. And I'll paste him over each one, the opinionated oaf.
Look, we have destroyed JWI's thread and he has started another one. I messaged him that (tentatively) I would not go there. I would not have gone here except that Alan is so obnoxious that he draws people in. He's been the ruin of many a poor boy, and Lord I know I'm one. Ann and many others make parallel points on the subject, but because they are all reasonably civil, nobody feels they must do battle with them.
I have learned my lesson. (tentatively) I will not mess with JWI's other thread. (probably) @The Librarian is right. You can't destroy every thread by kicking every dog that barks at you. Not if you want to get very far. Rodney King said it best: 'people, can't we all just get along?' The Beatles said it second best: we must 'come together.'
This thread is a goner, and it will die a quick death if no fuel is heaped on. But there is yet (some) hope for JWI's new thread. Let know one trample upon it, at least not for 42 months.

I'll use that line on @The Librarian the next time the old hen comes around.

I'll get a lot of mileage out of this one. @AlanF will pounce on every single word. And I'll paste him over each one, the opinionated oaf.
Look, we have destroyed JWI's thread and he has started another one. I messaged him that (tentatively) I would not go there. I would not have gone here except that Alan is so obnoxious that he draws people in. He's been the ruin of many a poor boy, and Lord I know I'm one. Ann and many others make parallel points on the subject, but because they are all reasonably civil, nobody feels they must do battle with them.
I have learned my lesson. (tentatively) I will not mess with JWI's other thread. (probably) @The Librarian is right. You can't destroy every thread by kicking every dog that barks at you. Not if you want to get very far. Rodney King said it best: 'people, can't we all just get along?' The Beatles said it second best: we must 'come together.'
This thread is a goner, and it will die a quick death if no fuel is heaped on. But there is yet (some) hope for JWI's new thread. Let know one trample upon it, at least not for 42 months.

This is such a strange comment, because the post has nothing to do with Trump.
Nonetheless, one cannot but notice the parallels. The President does rib his enemies all the time. It always goes over their heads and they accuse him of telling 'lies.' Is it a deliberate ploy to try to hang him with his own literal words or are they just plain stupid? Darned if I know. But they look like absolute fools when they, say (this one I'm just making up, Alan) say he lied when he called someone out for crying crocodile tears, since they know the man is not a crocodile. Or maybe they don't look like fools, because they relate only to each other, and they all think it is vital to point out that distinction. What a screwy world!
Alan is just like these yoyos. How many times has he accused me of telling a lie? He harps on it. It very obviously is not a lie (that Wolff spoke to no one of importance). Granted, it is an exaggeration. But it is very hard to believe anyone does not clearly see the remark for what it is, excepting only someone who prides himself on being dense.
He even managed to insinuate I was racist!!! Me! Lovable TTH - who is unfailing nice to all people, with minor permissible caveats, whereas he is unfailingly offensive, condescending and nasty. I mean, C'mon! Does he not remind you of those big dumb animals with horns that rams its fellows to prove who's the man? (to that extent, he does prove evolution)
As far as I am concerned, Trump v Hillary is a godsend for Christians because it brings into stark relief 2 Timothy 3:1-5 - that endless list of negative traits. It used to be if you cited it and your listener didn't agree the verse is fulfilled now more than ever, there was not much you could do about it - it is subjective. But now its fulfillment is so obvious. 
It used to be people would scream at each other till the cows come home over God/no God, or medicine/alt medicine or various other sideshows that could be ignored by the average person. But with Trump/hate Trump, almost everybody is drawn in and 2 Timothy 3 becomes the yeartext for this entire system of things.

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?

Hey, does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode where the driver strikes and kills the kid? -obviously and accident. His wife remarks over dinner how horrible it is that the unknown driver did not turn himself in, and is puzzled by her husband's agitation. His car begins to haunt him. It wakes him up out of a sound sleep with blaring horn. (as a child, it was spooky as all get-out!) He tells his wife the next morning that he will walk to work, since the car has been acting funny. She is amazed to see the garage door open, and the car follows him - he panics and falls. The car stops inches from crushing his head. The passenger door opens. He gets in and it drives him presumably to the police station to confess. The car is the avenger of blood!!

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?

Because they are plagued with guilt over being so smart and wish to level the playing field.

Hey, does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode where the driver strikes and kills the kid? -obviously and accident. His wife remarks over dinner how horrible it is that the unknown driver did not turn himself in, and is puzzled by her husband's agitation. His car begins to haunt him. It wakes him up out of a sound sleep with blaring horn. (as a child, it was spooky as all get-out!) He tells his wife the next morning that he will walk to work, since the car has been acting funny. She is amazed to see the garage door open, and the car follows him - he panics and falls. The car stops inches from crushing his head. The passenger door opens. He gets in and it drives him presumably to the police station to confess. The car is the avenger of blood!!

Do you mean to tell me this has all been much ado about nothing?
@Shiwiiiand his friends have been blowing up this balloon as if experiencing orgasm for months, even years. Even JTR, who now acts as though he knew it all along,  did all he could to suggest the Witness organization was the very Mecca of pedophilia. And now, it all comes to this? JW children are the safest of all?
Can it really be? I need some smart people to weigh in on this.

Do you mean to tell me this has all been much ado about nothing?
@Shiwiiiand his friends have been blowing up this balloon as if experiencing orgasm for months, even years. Even JTR, who now acts as though he knew it all along,  did all he could to suggest the Witness organization was the very Mecca of pedophilia. And now, it all comes to this? JW children are the safest of all?
Can it really be? I need some smart people to weigh in on this.

See? The problem is not with Africans or anyone else currently coming to the U.S. The damage was done long ago.
Maybe the current crop can teach the one with 40-60K tenure some manners, or better yet, some humility.

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')   BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.   How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?   The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?   THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.   Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.   Does it work?

No no no @Foreigner - you misunderstand me.
You have called @AlanF a pengabo. That means you and I are friends. Nobody thinks Alan is a big jerk more than me. I was being sarcastic writing what I did and you didn't realize that. I am sorry for that. It is my fault. 
Look at my posts. I have posted two in a row which are nothing but making him look bad by his own mouth - quoting insult after insult of his that he has hurled at other people. He cannot speak without being nasty. And I am just getting started. There are still pages of his taunts I can draw upon. It is unusual that someone is so ugly as he - he is even nasty to you when he says you played "the race card." You can play it all you want as far as I am concerned.
Okay? You don't like him. I don't like him. Nobody with any sense likes him.
When I write I use humor. I use exaggeration. I will make up stories. Sometimes I use sarcasm. It is easy to misunderstand if you are mostly familiar with another language. I told a joke and maybe you thought I was making fun of you. I wasn't. It was just a good joke and I remembered it after I looked up penjango. I had never heard that word before. 
Let me tell you who some of the people here are. You said Ann and I run this site. Neither of us do, though we both comment a lot. I can't stand Ann. It is not personal - personally maybe I would be okay with her. But here she does everything she can to run down Jehovah's Witnesses and their organization. Does she run down even God, like Alan does? I am not sure. I have to go back and check. But we are not friends. And we don't run the website.
The person who runs this site is The Librarian. I am pretty sure he is a Witness, but you can't know anything for sure on the internet. Many people, and apostates are among them, work hard to hide who and what they are, so you never know for sure. Even The Librarian is not the chief owner. The chief owner is Admin, and he may be someone else who comments a lot on other topics,  but it is a pure guess on my part and so I will not say.
Proverbs 6: 16-19 tells about things God hates: Last on the list of seven is: "And anyone sowing contentions among brothers." I never argue with brothers. I will quit a discussion before I do that. Even with non-Witnesses I am nice and avoid arguing. But I am not nice to apostates. At first I am somewhat, until their motives, methods and persistence become manifest. Then, sometimes I will seek to verbally kneecap them. It is not really Christian that I try to do this. But if I am going to be disobedient to counsel and hang where these guys freely roam and launch attacks, I must grant myself that concession.
It will help you if you know that nobody here is a typical Witness. Most are not Witnesses at all. Many are apostates who once were Witnesses but are no longer. Many here who are Witnesses do not hesitate to correct God's organization, something I would never presume to do. That at least makes them atypical Witnesses. The typical Witness of Jehovah will be obedient to counsel and not hang out here. Some will come once or twice to explore, but as soon as they see there are many here that hate Witnesses and their organization, yet they are still given a platform to speak, they will leave. They will think of the Bible verses that says one should not hang out with such persons.
Okay? Here they do nothing but argue, and at best, you might see who is better with the head in this argument or that. But it is the heart that counts. No argument with the head can show what is in the heart.
We are not enemies, Foreigner. I don't want you to think that. I do not denigrate your writing skills. I do not think I am better than you or anyone else. I think well of you that you would even try communicating in a second language. I cannot do it.  I am sorry to confuse you. I didn't mean to.

The secret is to ignore all such fine print as @The Librarian takes us all to the cleaners.

This remark is addressed to Allen, I know, not me - but my current nefarious scheme is to change all URLs - even those of AlanF!! - in all posts to point to my blog. My goal is to one day place $1.00 into the outstretched hand of @The Librarian (the old hen) as I stop for the red light getting off the expressway. #willblogforfood     
hehehehe :))))))))

A better idea is to quickly change the title of all your books to "The Fire and the Fury."
An old book called "The Fire and the Fury" by Randall Hansen from 2009 (about Allied bombing in WWII) has suddenly become a best seller in Amazon, in spite of languishing sales for many years. I heard an interview with Hansen where he says he should send a bottle of champagne to Michael Wolff.

Who is the other game in town? Show me. Tell me how you know. Tell me what they have to show for themselves.
JTR will doubtless follow you and he'll make a lot less trouble here. Seriously. They way he carries on, we would all be pleased to be rid of him. Show him the other game. Don't just say that the doers aren't doing it right. Show him someone else who is doing it right. Show us what they are doing. Be specific.

As I recall, there was also something about the composition of the driveway, too. It was not the ordinary blacktop. 
and......the house number.....was........607!
Take it, guys! I'm off this thread!