Karen Booker

Trump himself passed them out in our congregation.
[No, I’m kidding—there will always be someone to take it seriously] 
And if there was anything hush-hush about the program, that never reached my ears. I posted both here and on my own blog of it.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/05/produce-from-the-usdaisnt-that-nice.html
In our service group, when an elderly sister remarked on how the brothers had bought this food, the one with oversight told her it was not they—they were just distributing—it was a government program that they had signed on to.
I do get the concern, (not of Witness, for she just wants to deride her rivals) but of the ones who originated her source material, that maybe there is someone who needs the food more. And that certainly could be. The part where Bro Hendricks says ‘we advised those who received packages not to turn them down’ and later presents the rationale that they will be inclined to underestimate their own burden—“downplaying any private struggles with food insecurity”—I can see that, too. (My wife and I are not destitute, but we are retired and we do live off social security—living modestly as Witnesses do, so that the stipend is far from huge) I responded the same way that Hendricks suggested some might respond: there will be others who need it more—and we were told that if that is the case, we could share with neighbors and others. I know of ones who have done this. How many? No idea. People of faith tend to take to heart Jesus’ counsel to not let the right hand know what the left is doing and not to blow a trumpet in front of them whenever they give. At some point you have to put faith in the “little people” to do what is right.
Since JWs are the lowest income group of all faiths (and Witness sneers over that too, no doubt), even if aid went no further than they and their immediate associates, it would hardly be a travesty. But, as indicated, they were encouraged to share if they felt there were others who could benefit more.
The trick is finding these ones. The solution of leaving it up to the individual to share with cases that he/she personally knows of is probably as efficient as any, and It may be the most efficient. If you are poor, you will likely live in a poor neighborhood, and will know of serious cases of need. If you are a Witness not poor, you will know of some who are, because Witnesses are a tightly knit community, and can find out about such hard cases through them in the event that none are in your immediate area.
Witness’s concern is only to slam JWs, but the tone of the article is irreligious in general, and whatever potential abuses of USDA rules it describes are not those of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even of such lesser charges as swapping the government logo for a religious one. The box we received plainly said ‘Farmers to Families—USDA.’ (and I am glad I took a picture of it for my prior post, because you know that Witness would not mention it)
Those church outfits will have to speak for themselves, and I noticed that some had no comment, in contrast to Hendricks, who did. Still, doesn’t jealousy account for much of the article’s tone, that communities of faith are motivated to have effective distribution channels that far outstrip those of non-faith, those purely secular? Says the article: “Many food banks and other nonprofits have complained that they’re incurring significant, unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” Not to be unfeeling, but whose fault is that? 
Faith, love of brother, and love of neighbor has moved ones of the JW organization to overcome these “unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” The packages I’ve received have been delivered directly to my door, and I have indeed shared some with others who were not recipients. JWs thus set an example showing secular outfits how it can be done. All those outfits need to do is find similar selfless people.
Of course, they do have some. I’ve nothing but praise for secular food relief organizations. But they don’t have such selfless ones in anywhere near the abundance as does the Witness faith-based community, and that is why massive lines have accompanied some distributions—one wonders if in some cases the aid received is not offset by the cost of gasoline in retrieving it. 
In the early days of the pandemic, before monitory relief came from the government that temporarily took the pressure off many, I wrote a check to one of these food banks. I don’t like the idea of people going hungry. I wanted to give, and I did so. Yet, as I did so, I had to come to grips with the certain knowledge that inefficiencies built into such programs would dilute my contribution. It pains me that this is the case. I wish it were not. I wish they could draw upon enough people in the overall community to solve distribution issues—it’s produce, after all—it can’t sit around forever. At heart, the issue is that non-faith does not move people to be selfless to the same extent as does faith, and the article seems to me an expression of jealousy that such is the case. Is it so shocking that that when people of faith give they want to call attention to what implanted that generous spirit within them? The article appears even to have even political overtones, complaining at the perceived shortfalls of a Trump administration program.
Of course, if there are abuses of the system, then someone ought lower the boom on whoever is committing them. “Saving” people in the parking lot, soliciting donations for the program, offering prayer sessions as a condition, things that Witnesses do not do, does sound as though it might violate the spirit or even letter of the program. And are parishioners poor to start with, as JWs in the aggregate are, or are some well-off? All proper matters to look at, it seems. But at present, this looks to me like another article—I have seen many—that highlights the abuses of some churches and by headline suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the worst of them, even though Witnesses steer clear of such shenanigans.
I wouldn’t know just what is the case with “Heather,” whose complaint triggered this article. But I reflect back upon when I was working in a group home that hired a new assistant manager. In short order, I began to feel some heat, and in time I went to the house manager about it. “For some reason, I think she is trying to get me fired,” I told her. The manager thought that unlikely. She asked me why that would be, and I truthfully told her I didn’t know. But I then mentioned that it turns out she and I know hundreds of people in common, for she was once a member of my faith. “Oh,” the manager said, and instantly her tone changed. She said no more, I said no more, and I heard no more, until a week or two later that that asst manager had been discharged. The hostility of some ex-JWs is hard to fathom.
 

I don't know what congregation this was but we in ours did not do anything like that. The elders made it clear that the boxes were from the "farmers to families" government aid. Our boxes even had a message from Trump.....The elders had brothers distribute them to families they considered needed it most.
It seems like that congregation was the exception rather than the rule. However, I can understand that since all good things come from Jehovah, someone who was in dire need would have been grateful to God for this government help. 

Thanks for the insight.  I never thought of it that way.
The Baptism is an outward symbol of a dedication ALREADY MADE IN IT'S TOTALITY.
Whatever you dedicated to Jehovah God is between you and God, alone ... and what the GB has done is try an "control the narrative", and add to that.
I wonder what would happen if after Baptism at an Assembly, where you stood up with many baptismal candidates that said "YES", and you did not affirm the questions asked you.  I doubt they examine the videos to make sure you did, or have someone watch to see if you did, taking notes.  Then, after perhaps several years of faithful life, casually mention that your immersion was as public as you needed, and that you never said "Yes" like all the others did.
What you had resolved in your heart to do was sufficient, and nothing needed to be added.
It's obvious that you were not there to soap up and bathe.
Or ... let's say you were on a camping trip beside a lake, and you turned to your Bible Teacher and said "What's to prevent me from being baptized ..." quoting the Ethiopian Eunuch, and you both went down to the lake, and your teacher baptized you.
As far as I know, it only takes ONE other person present to be a public expression of your dedication, and it would in actual fact be quite valid.
That brings up the next consideration .....
When you got back to your home congregations, relating the events of the camping trip, how much crap would you have to put up with from the Elders ... or would it be none at all?
 

“I came to start a fire on the earth, and what more is there for me to wish if it has already been lighted?”—Luke 12:49
What fire? How did it get lit?
Doesn’t it refer to God’s ways versus the ways of a world estranged from him? That fire was lit long ago. Jesus fans it into fever pitch, introducing a preaching activity that will ultimately put the choice in everyone’s face—is it the kingdom that they want to rule over them, or the present human system of 200 squabbling nations? Jehovah’s Witnesses who speak for him today do nothing to bring that future kingdom about, but they do publicize it:
“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44
Moreover, those who want and expect that kingdom rule versus those who do not want or expect it assume different priorities in their lives that reflect their desires and expectations. It makes for significant conflicts, even within families. That must be what Jesus meant as he went on to  say: 
Do you imagine I came to give peace on the earth? No, indeed, I tell you, but rather division.  For from now on there will be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against [her] mother, mother-in-law against [her] daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against [her] mother-in-law.”—Luke 12:51-53
It manifests itself today in people changing sides—for the allure of both sides are as strong as the are different. In the case of a Witness family that some members depart from, it takes the form of the latter charging that they were misled, manipulated, and so forth. No wonder the apostle seems to anticipate the charge:
“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.”—2 Corinthians 7:2
and
“Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery.”—2 Corinthians 12:16. 
Jesus doesn’t buy it, either, about being obtuse regarding the end of this system of things approaching:
“Then he went on to say also to the crowds: “When see a cloud rising in western parts, at once you say, ‘A storm is coming,’ and it turns out so.  And when you see that a south wind is blowing, you say, ‘There will be a heat wave,’ and it occurs.  Hypocrites, you know how to examine the outward appearance of earth and sky, but how is it you do not know how to examine this particular time?—Luke 12:54-56
The trick may be to check your “critical thinking” skills at the door, so as to focus on what he next says: “Why do you not judge also for yourselves what is righteous?”—vs 57   God’s kingdom is “righteous.” Human governments, whatever their intent, whatever their ideals, whatever their sporadic successes, are not.
That being the case with God’s kingdom approaching, why make oneself an “adversary of him?”
“For example, when you are going with your adversary at law to a ruler, get to work, while on the way, to rid yourself of the dispute with him, that he may never hale you before the judge, and the judge deliver you to the court officer, and the court officer throw you into prison.”—vs 58
I liked this point as well (most of these verses were considered at the Kingdom Hall meeting this past week, and the ones not will be considered next week):
“But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting [him] and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones.”—vs 45-46
Practically speaking, the “slave” that doubts that the master is coming anytime soon (or at all) begins to reappraise all the effort he has put into publicizing that event. What once seemed as natural as breathing air now comes to seem wasted time, in fact, worse than wasted time, since it served to put he/she behind the curve as regards the goals of the greater world. In no time at all, such persons have joined “the unfaithful ones.” They are deriding what they once embraced—in effect, “beating their fellow slaves.” They are almost forced to carry on about how they were misled and manipulated, because the alternative is to explain how they could have been so stupid to go along for so many yeas with what they now reject. So they frame matters as a “sinister religious corporation” taking advantage of the minions. They are nuts—the only reason members incorporate is so that they can do things legally, such as owning land or publishing, that will not all fall apart with the death of the founders.
Let us visit the parallel verses in the Book of Matthew, noting that the slaves doing business have always been associated with the preaching and disciple-making work. Let us consider it in the satirical Sheepngoats Translation, which is not accepted by all scholars—in fact, most of them assume that the translators must have been smoking something:
“After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them.  So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 
“Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’  His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 
“Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I didn’t do squat. I thought about it, but you see, to do business, I would have had to work with the others, and they are all jerks. I also would have had to work with the bankers, and it is all about money with them. And I for sure didn’t want to work with any non-profit organizations who might lean on me to do something I didn’t want to do. I shouldn’t have to put up with that—I have rights. After all, we all know that you reap where you did not sow, and gather where you do not winnow. You want disciples? Then get off your rear end and make them yourself! Don’t foist your corporate agenda on me!’
“In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow?  Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest.’”—Matthew 25:19-25
The master could have worked with that attitude, it appears! Just take it to the bank if you feel that way, he says. Instead, the loutish slave dug in the ground and hid the silver money, (vs 25) working up a sweat so as to thwart the master’s will. it is as opposers do today. They go to considerable effort to thwart the work that they once took part it.
 
 
 

I cannot see why General Mills does not have all the food products that they have manufactured since 1879. What is the problem? What is with those liars, anyway?
Too often when the scoundrels come up with something that they think will make Witnesses squirm, we accept their premise.  In most cases, we should question it. Look at it very closely. It is often wrong.
In this case it is that “spiritual food” should not change. Why should it not? It represents the light that grows brighter and brighter until full daylight, as in Proverbs 4:18. When you are “keeping on the watch” in light that is not so good, you see a lot of things that turn out to be wrong.
This is not true if you are sitting on your rear end, not “keeping on the watch.” It is not true if one expects spiritual things to be delivered like Santa Claus delivers presents. But if one gets the sense of verses such as 1 Peter 1:10 about diligent inquiries, careful searches, keep on investigating, or Matthew 24–“let the reader use discernment”—then it is true. If one is doing what Jesus says, “Keep on the watch” in light that is insufficient, then it happens.
It’s when people tire of it all that they start to log all the misses and near-misses. It is no more complicated than “Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things” spun as though he is embarking on a lofty search for eye-opening truth. There is no reason that spiritual food should not change.
“Spiritual food” resembles physical food in that it exists to be consumed. It powers you for the moment. It has a shelf life. Who here has items of physical food on the shelf from 50 years ago? It serves its purpose and it is gone.
If General Mills stops selling Wheaties, it is not a conspiracy. It is not a ban on Wheaties. It is simply providing food more relevant to the present age. So it is with spiritual food. If HQ instructed ones to destroy all copies of the Aid book, for example, that would be a ban. But they don’t. They simply let things go out of print that are no longer relevant. 
Because infantile people who have tired of “keeping on the watch” because they have come to “love the present system of things” and who want to spin their previous “wasted” years as the fault of those who “misled” them, scour past publications to see anything that has changed and feed it into a wrong premise that it should not.
They don’t do it with any other field of knowledge. They don’t do it with matters of science, which also reaches wrong conclusions and finds itself backing out of cul-de-sacs, or which hangs on to wrong conclusions for the longest time due to pure human stubbornness or greed. As much as half of what is currently published in medical journals is wrong, say the editors of some of them—let alone what was published in the past. They don’t go back (or even stay in the present) to criticize that.
https://ethicalnag.org/2009/11/09/nejm-editor/
 
 
 

Whenever a new version of Scripture appears that is colloquialized, paraphrased, or just plain dumbed down, the refrain is heard: “If it gets modern people to read God’s Word, it is worth it.” How far you want to take this trend is anyone’s guess. Suffice it to say that the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats pushes the boundaries as they have never been pushed before. It is an incredible find from the dry desert where it has been preserved for thousands of years. (though there are a few critics at the Whitepebble Institute who claim it has only been around two weeks and was discovered in the glove box of Harley’s car)
And yet—and yet—though it takes outrageous liberties and outright manufactures a few things, it does serve to convey the basic idea of the entire Book of Galatians. Is it right to spoil the book for everyone else in the course of getting a good grasp of it yourself? Your guess is as good as mine.
Anyway, here is the text of the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats edition of Galatians:
Chapter 1
Dear Galatians: Hi. Remember me? It’s Paul. How are you? (1:1-5)
The reason I say ‘remember me’ is because I’m not sure that you do! I can’t believe how quickly you are screwing up! Is that chair I used to sit in even cold yet? What is this about louts trying to change the whole narrative? They’re not allowed to do that! Look, even angels are not allowed to do that! (6-9)
You remember what a jerk I was. Nobody made more trouble for you than me. But after God let me hear about it right there on the Damascus road and that other fellow was sent so that I could see again, I went off to Arabia for three years to think about it. (13-17)
Then I came back to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for a couple of weeks. But no one else—wait, I did see James, but none of the others. Then I went off again. What! You think I am fibbing? For years and years, had you asked those apostles about me, they would have said, “I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine. He used to be the nastiest fellow. Now it looks as though he is on our side. Cool! We’ll take it!” (18-24)
Chapter 2
About 14 years later I figured that maybe I had better give those guys a call. I had Barnabas with me by then, and Titus—fine fellows. I met with them privately, of course, just in case I was not doing something—um, kosher. “You okay with this?” I said to them. “You’re not going to make Titus do that Jewish thing, are you? I don’t see any need for it.” They didn’t either! (2:1-3)
It probably wouldn’t even have come up were it not for those pinheaded louts trying to drag us down, wanting us to everything Jewish that we don’t have to do anymore. We blew right past them, and it was for your sake just as much as for ours. (4-5)
Okay, so I consulted with these ones—I mean, I guess they are important. I wondered if they might try to rein me in, but no!—they said, “Whatever you are doing, keep on doing it. We’ll stick with preaching to Jews, but you—I mean, Peter unlocked that door for the nations, so go for it! Just don’t ignore the poor.” Sure, I can do that. (6-10)
But then Peter came calling later on and suddenly he himself goes all Jewish on me. Oh, sure, he pals around with these new Gentile Christians easy enough, but when his buddies show up, he acts like he doesn’t know them. I said, “I don’t believe it! Here you are living the free life, telling others to be like that, and then the narrow-minded fuddy duddies show up and you get all scaredy cat? (11-14)
Yeah, well he’s a good sort, but he goes a little weak at the knees sometimes. You don’t have to do any of that Jewish stuff! What do you think the Lord is for? (15-21)
Chapter 3
What on earth is wrong with you? How can you be so dumb? You break free but then turn around and go back because you forgot your leg irons? Are you kidding me? (3:1-5)
Don’t pull this Abraham stuff on me. Wait, no. If you want to talk Abraham, let’s talk Abraham. You think he earned anything? No! He “put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” THAT’S what you want to take away from Abraham—his faith, and how he pointed the way for other people to have faith. Not the later Law—that Law did nothing but show you up for the basket cases that you were! Did you manage to keep it? No! All you did was screw up. That’s why when Christ comes along, you are supposed to say, “Exactly what we need! Thank you, thank you, thank you. (6-11)
You don’t go back to the Law again—what’s wrong with you? The Law has nothing to do with faith. Christ pulled us out of that—THAT’S what Abraham was pointing to, and you want to dive back in again? (12-14)
Okay, now look—let’s take this real slow. Take notes if it will help. So Abraham gets a promise that means the Christ will come through his lineup, but how does the Law figure in? It comes 430 years later. Does it change his promise? I don’t think so. (15-18)
Why the Law? It’s because you guys kept messing up, that’s why. And it was supposed to dawn on you that you DID keep messing up and that you’re never (and yes—me, too) going to come out like the champion of Jeopardy. You weren’t supposed to think that dotting all the ‘I’s and crossing all the ‘T’s would get you there—besides, you missed lots of them. (19-22)
Yes, it gave you something to do and kept you off the streets. But now that the real thing has arrived, you can set down your slates. Class is over. You can join in with that promise to Abraham. (23-29)
Chapter 4
It took a long time for you to get to where you are. A lot of work went into it. Don’t mess it up. (4:1-8)
You had real freedom. I mean, real freedom in Christ. And now you want to become law nerds again and focus on dotting ‘I’s and crossing ‘T’s? Really? What! Do I have a death wish or something? What am I doing this for? (9-11)
Remember the good times we used to have? Remember how you used to loan me your specs? You didn’t then stick out your foot to trip me up. What’s gotten into you? (12-16)
Do you think that these pinheaded louts are your friends? They just want to be your bosses. “Meet the new boss—same as the old boss.” (17-20)
Go back to Abraham, you law nerds, and take a point. Two women, remember? One a concubine, one a wife. Hagar gave birth first because Sarah thought she was too old to have a child. No mystery about how Hagar conceived. You see it all the time on TV. But Sarah! THAT’S where God’s promise came in, and she didn’t even believe herself it could happen until it did! 
The two women stand for two groups of people. Hagar, the one of ordinary birth, is mother to the ones of Law (that you want go back to!) Sarah, the one of the promise, is mother to the ones putting their faith in Christ. (21-28)
The Hagar kid made trouble for the Sarah kid back then. It’s the same today with these pinheaded louts trying to force their Law on you. But what does the verse say? “Take this Law and shove it! I ain’t workin here no more!” Keep it that way! (29-31)
Chapter 5
You are free from slavery. Don’t go back to it. Or if you do, you’d better not miss a single one of those ‘I’s or ‘T’s. (5:1-6)
You were doing so well. Who tripped you up? Who made you think you need circumcision? It ain’t me, babe. Those Jews would give me a free pass if they thought I was turning Christianity into just one of their outposts. “Just you wait, enry iggins”—they’ll get theirs. (7-11)
In fact, I have half a mind to come and kick them in the nuts so hard that they won’t qualify to serve in the temple that they want to drag you into! (12)
No, brothers, don’t go there. Just don’t. You don’t need their picayune Law. It all boils down to love anyway—that is the greatest part of it—so if you get you head around that, you’ll do just fine. You start nitpicking at each other over every pissy little thing and you’ll tear each other apart! (13-18)
Don’t do bad things. Do good things. What do you mean, ‘What bad things?’ “No back-biting, no ass-grabbing, you know exactly what I mean!” [thank you, Randy Neuman] It shouldn’t be hard, if you really are following the Christ. Do the best you can, and don’t go thinking that you are better than the other guy. (19-26)
Chapter 6
Okay, let’s wrap this up. Don’t be babies—man up, but pull each other out of the crud when you have to (be sure you don’t fall in yourself). (6:1-5)
Don’t try to Play around with God. You can’t. Keep on keeping on—it will all pay off. Lend a hand where needed. (6-10)
See the large letters I make, all by myself with my own hand? Why? Because I am blind as a bat—that’s why. I dunno—it comes and goes. That’s why I insulted that pompous character before I knew he was the high priest. I asked God to take it away, but he said, “Nah, it keeps you humble.” And it has. It’s not an altogether bad thing to have a thorn in the flesh. (11)
Now, remember—they are pinheaded louts trying to lay their Law on you. And why? They’re just chicken themselves—like Peter might have been, but he saw where he was heading and corrected himself. They don’t want to stand out among their cronies, and they want to find strength in numbers by having you do what they do—it will hide their cowardice. What! You think they do the Law themselves? No way! They just want to do some back-stabbing and ass-grabbing themselves and then throw in a gerbil or something for sacrifice to make it all good again. Come on! Please—you are too smart not to see through them. (12-16)
I’ve suffered for carrying the good news of the Christ. So have you. Don’t turn back to be a law nerd again. Press on ahead. God will back you. So will Christ. (17-18)
***
What a bunch of idiots there at the Whitepebble Institute—tossing this amazing new manuscript in the dumpster! The place has gone right downhill ever since the director, Wayne Whitepebble, took a course on critical thinking and tried to kiss up to the evolutionists by adding an ancient skull to his library alongside the globe and old maps because he heard that is what smart people do but then it turned out that his ancient skull was actually missing evidence in the Mugsy McDougal ax murder case and he got into serious hot water with the authorities.
Plainly, this new find belongs in the Bible canon.

 
 

I wonder why the Anointed of God, although self admittedly NOT inspired of God, the ones supplying "food at the proper time", etc., seem to be completely devoid of common sense of any kind, on any subject.
They have been struggling with the CSA problem for YEARS now, and are seemingly no closer to a solution than they were five years ago.
IT'S NOT THAT HARD !!!!!
This is NOT Quantum Chromodynamics!
 

Why not ask Brother Morris, then the issue is resolved.
Everything else is just embarrassing!
April 19th is our MEMORIAL ceremony ❤ ♥ ☼ ♥ ❤ 
Thank you....

Then there were two buyers  in the store with carts of MaCallan whiskey at the same time.  The cart near Tony Morris lost its original owner.  Tony Morris wandered away from his cart left in another aisle.  I suppose anything is possible. 
 
 
I think the best way to settle it, is for you to make a comment under Lloyd's video and ask him to email the man who filmed Mr. Morris, with the questions you are asking.   

Anna makes a very good point:
If it IS an idol representing something ... what SPECIFICALLY is it?
Does it have a name?
Does it have a description?
Does it have a history of any religious significance?
Anybody now leaving bags of Potato Chips at the base?
I remember seeing your (?) original picture posting.
It is an impressive piece of abstract massive art as far as i can tell. (?)
Reminds me of the old story of a psychiatrist showing Rorschach  ink blot cards to a sexually criminally insane prisoner, and to every ink blot card he was shown, he gave a vile, sexual, and ugly description of what he supposedly saw.
Finally, the shrink lost his temper and called him several unprofessional names befitting the prisoner's warped mind.
The prisoner replied:
"Why are you angry with ME?
... YOUR the one with the dirty pictures!"
Or, as the Eagles once sang about standing on the corner, in Winslow Arizona ..
" Don't let the sound of your own wheels ... make you Craaaaaa-zeee !"