What kind of Cosmetics can you use if you are TWO FACED?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Well said... for a "company man".

[TrueTomHarley]

When you read a person's statement and you disagree, he will say you must consider the context. You must read more.

When you do that and still disagree, he will say you have to read yet more to get a more complete picture.

When you do that and still disagree, the answer is to read yet more.

When you do that, to the point of reading everything the idiot has ever written, and you still disagree, he will call you a fool. It is just the way he is. 

Who was it that said one must season their words with salt? Make words winsome, and not wincing.? If I read a short article and it is well-written, I am motivated to read more. If what little I have read persuades or intrigues me, I look for the next installment.

If, on the other hand, what I read is insults and taunts and photoshopped silliness, my attention wanes. It may be that I have thereby missed out on the revelations of a true genius, but it is a price I am willing to pay. If you want to persuade, you must go about it differently. You cannot salt your comments with words that do nothing but turn off. Who do you think is going to suffer through that in order to determine - when all appearances are to the contrary - whether you truly have both oars in the water?

This is particularly so if you keep demanding that I submit myself to cross-examination, as though in court.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

On 10/17/2017 at 6:15 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You may have noticed  from the above, TTH, that I ALWAYS try to answer your specific questions, and you NEVER answer mine.

I have submitted to, and answered ALL your questions I ever remember you asking, specifically, and in detail ... and to everybody elses' questions they have submitted ... year after year after year.

The REASON for cross examinations is to arrive at the TRUTH of any matter.  

I submit to all cross-examinations ... and have told many very personal  things about myself to stimulate controversy so that the pot is stirred, and hopefully TRUTHS of all kinds will separate and rise to the top, and have, here on the Archive, for somewhere around six or seven years.

The TRUTH is painful .... and hard .... and soul searching.

The REASON for cross examinations is to arrive at the TRUTHS of many matters   ...  but without them we swim with chains, and we share those chains with others who swim.

There is ALWAYS enough chains.

We both believe in the same God, the Same Christ, the same Kingdom, and the same basic principles, except for only one principal thing, as far as I can see.

You are afraid of the water ... I am afraid of the chains.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

And I am not trying to persuade you about ANYTHING.

I am trying to get you to think about EVERYTHING.

[TrueTomHarley]

On 10/12/2017 at 11:55 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Campos admitted to molesting seven children from 1982 to 1999. Despite his admission, church elders agreed to let Campos rejoin the congregation after a four-year expulsion.

The fact that this fellow is not behind bars is very strange to me, in light of what he is supposed to have done. There may be an answer for it, but surely it is something that should be explained, and the reporter behind the story mentions none. 

It has been covered already that there is a blatant untruth in her story - her statement that Witnesses are prohibited from reporting to authorities. If she had said many Witnesses were disinclined to run to authorities, that would be one thing. But she said they are prohibited from doing so, when right on the Witness website is a statement that they are not. Even if she didn't believe it, a decent reporter would at least note it. Instead, she has been fed a line by someone and she repeats it uncritically, without research.

So what about the fact this fellow is not in jail? It seems he should be if his crimes are as unambiguous, repeated, and grievous as announced. Why is he not? Are there some mitigating circumstances that no one has seen fit to cover? Maybe not, but it seems a relevant point.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH:

I think you are correct ... that it would be helpful to have some better answers.

Now that more people have cell phones or home phones with unlimited long distance calling for the same price ... why not put on a Sherlock Holmes  double-brimmed detective hat, sit down at the dining room table, and make an investigation!

Probably in less time than it takes to see two TV shows you could have full and complete answers!

[TrueTomHarley]

19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Now that more people have cell phones or home phones with unlimited long distance calling for the same price ... why not put on a Sherlock Holmes  double-brimmed detective hat, sit down at the dining room table, and make an investigation!

I am waiting for you to do this. I truly am.

You are more savvy searching every nook and cranny of everything than I. You certainly seem to have the time. You even have the motivation to portray things as black as you can.

I would like to know the truth about this.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

If I did that TTH ... you would never learn how to do it.

Think of it as "Tough Love".

Think of me as the mean, nasty, Drill Sergeant that makes your life miserable ... but so that you can survive.

Ever see the movie "Full Metal Jacket"? 

For the discerning ... there are many lessons that can be learned.

It is NOT a movie for the faint of heart, or the deliberate Mickey Mouse.

[TrueTomHarley]

7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Think of me as the mean, nasty, Drill Sergeant that makes your life miserable

I can get my head around that without much effort.

[TrueTomHarley]

I will go further.

Since there is one large hole in this story (why isn't the perpetrator in jail?) and one blatant untruth, (JWs are prohibited from telling authorities) everything else must be viewed in this light. Thus, the judge's reported exasperation over the Witnesses' defense may be exaggerated, misrepresented, or even concocted. Maybe it is like the media reporting that Trump and Tillerson do nothing but argue and that Tillerson is about to resign - and so Tillerson calls a news conference to say they get along just fine and he has never once thought of quitting. And they say: ‘well, did you call him a moron as we said?’ and he answers ‘where I come from we don’t have time for such petty nonsense

I mean, the San Diego case might be as reported, but the story is flawed enough and the reporter negligent enough, perhaps hostile, that it makes you wonder. 

It's not great to see JWs mentioned in courts in this connection - there is no positive way this can be spun. However, no tort lawyer wants to go to court - he or she wants a much-easier out-of-court settlement. The fact that this case is, nonetheless, in court indicates that one side or the other (or both) has dug in and is intransigent.

People are used to seeing lawyers employ every type of legal maneuvering. If it is for a cause they like, they praise them for it. If it is for a cause they do not like, they condemn them for it. There are no legal loopholes in court because if it is legal, it is not a loophold. It is a chaotic and inconsistent system, not of our doing, and one must operate according to whatever flies legally. I'd rather not see such things play out in the courts, but if they do, most people realize that lawyers will do what lawyers have to do given the adversarial system they operate in. 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There are no legal loopholes in court because if it is legal, it is not a loophold. It is a chaotic and inconsistent system, not of our doing, and one must operate according to whatever flies legally. I'd rather not see such things play out in the courts, but if they do, most people realize that lawyers will do what lawyers have to do given the adversarial system they operate in

Same with World War Two ... but I am not exonerating either aggressors or defenders when they "will do what they have to do".

BOTH SIDES in OUR court cases are supposed to be seeking JUSTICE.

If WE are "allowed" to subvert Justice ... we CANNOT GRIPE because they do, too.

If WE are "allowed" to subvert Justice to win .... we did not really win.

Not really.

We saved money but became moral losers.

Saving a hundred million dollars is not "winning", if we had to subvert Justice to save the money.

I suspect there was more accountability when dueling was legal.

[TrueTomHarley]

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Since there is one large hole in this story (why isn't the perpetrator in jail?) and one blatant untruth, (JWs are prohibited from telling authorities) everything else must be viewed in this light. Thus, the judge's reported exasperation over the Witnesses' defense may be exaggerated, misrepresented, or even concocted

Pure guesswork follows, I admit, but it is educated guesswork. It could be wrong. But it could well be right, seeing that the reporter has shown herself either partial or inept.

Any decent lawyer will raise objections at any trial. Some are sustained. Some are over-ruled. When overruled, the judge will say why, which invariably can be taken as a slap at that lawyer. A biased reporter, if she was one, could report that as the judge's 'exasperation' or sharp rebuke - implying that the lawyer really pushed her buttons, whereas in fact such retorts are routine. 

A vengeful reporter, if she was one, would surely report things this way. We should not assume that she isn't. In the field of politics today, many reporters are vengeful, for either one side or the other.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

BOTH SIDES in OUR court cases are supposed to be seeking JUSTICE

Neither is. That is not even the nature of a tort case. One side is equating money with justice. The other side expelled a scoundrel (you have described expulsion as a fate worse than hellfire) once his deeds were known and presumably saw him jailed for a long long time, though that doesn't seem to have happened - but if it did not happen, it is clearly the legal system's screw-up, not ours. 

Unless there is some reason he should not be jailed, a reason not reported, and a reason that would alter everything.