TrueTomHarley

You have put your finger on something very significant, Kurt. Thank you for posting it.

I think I heard that the Russians gave Trump a Strava and are eagerly following all his jogging paths.

I always thought it was a stupid line that "the terrorists are trying to disrupt our way of life." It never made sense to me. If anything, I figured the exact opposite was true. They DO NOT want to disrupt the way of life of those they would attack. They want them to continue to walk about as bowling pins, all the easier to knock down. Sure enough, it was only a matter of time before car dealers and the like were exhorting the public to keep carrying on as before - why if they hold back, the terrorists have won! But I never actually knew where the stupid slogan came from. Until last night. I saw The Seige movie from 1998 on TV. On a hunch, I checked out Denzel Washington's retort to the general about the terrorists winning. It was the filmmaker's line! The slogan comes from Hollywood! It is from BEFORE the pandemic of actual terrorist attacks. Not from anyone who actually knows anything! It is just a story! Who would have thought? An online movie summary includes: "[Denzel] Washington's character, FBI agent Anthony Hubbard, struggles as the fight against terrorism takes over the city. He's the first to introduce the 'terrorists have won' rhetoric."What if what they really want is for us to herd children into stadiums like we're doing and put soldiers on the street and have Americans look over their shoulders - bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit?' he asks in a furious tirade. "'We do that and everything that we have bled and fought and died for is over." Oh, sure! Motley terrorists huddled back home green with envy over the hedonistic society abroad, rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of screwing up their Constitution! Now THERE'S a cause to die for! A lot of stupid stuff originates with the 'furious tirades' of make-believe movie characters! And what does this tell us about the pundits who reiterate this wisdom? Where do they have their thinking forged? What serves for their 'sources?' Pass the popcorn, please.

sigh.....I chose long ago.

I, for one, was furious when I read of this outrage taking place right in Hollywood. My blood pressure shot to the moon. They had to call NASA. You should get on board, too.

Oh, so you approve of molestation, do you?

On another thread, I mentioned I had smashed up my Honda Fit. I have been looking at other Fits. Google found out about it and not I cannot go to a news aggregater without seeing Fits everywhere. A fine reason to buy a Chevy, as far as I am concerned.

It is DuckDuckGo that catches my interest. it is said to not skew results per what is politically correct or try to define for readers what is fake news and what is real news. Having said that, I have yet to use it. (or even remember its name, until prompted) I think now I will try it some, as a supplement.

thanks for this. It almost inspires me - maybe I will do it - to give each a try for a week

i think that if Google is perceived as too invasive, it will prompt some too check out the competition. Same thing if it is perceived as too nannylike, directing searches towards 'approved' results. To the extent Google is proprietary - attempting to lock in its suite of services and lock out the competition, it will prompt some to go elsewhere. Trouble is, most 'elsewhere' does the same.

What about Joseph's reaction after Mary told him why she was pregnant but before the angel confirmed it? 'Because Joseph was righteous and did not want to make her a public spectacle, he intended to divorce her secretly.' It is an odd use of the word 'righteous.' You would almost expect 'good' or 'kind' but not 'righteous' Did not Paul say that hardly will anyone die for someone righteous but perhaps for a good man someone dares to die? Joseph figured she was pregnant the same way everyone else would be. You would think 'righteous' would be to do what he would do and let the chips fall where they may. If she becomes a public spectacle, she should have thought about that before. But he didn't treat her that way.. He may have thought she had a screw loose - something he had not noticed before. Or maybe she had some sort of PTSD thing from a MeToo experience.

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

We don't need no educaishun. We don't need no thought control. Hey, teacher, leave us kids alone!

Don't want no railing. Don't want no frothing. Zip Zero Nada hehehe :))))))

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.

!

It would hardly do to break an axle due to a pothole while fleeing to the city of refuge - while the AOB is closing in swinging a truncheon. So I liked that bit about keeping the roads in good repair. i liked even more the modern day application of keeping the roads open today. Since the accidental manslayer's counterpart must flee to where he can get spiritual help, the latter should keep the roads open. If they are known to be 'difficult people' with 'personalities' (let the reader use discernment), it is rather like a pothole that the supplicant may break an axle on. There is such a thing as homophobia in the truth. Our definition would differ from that of the LGBT world, who think that failure to be cool with their lifestyle is homophobia. It is not our definition. However, were there an elder who was known to absolutely rail and froth over gay things, out of proportion to anything else - and then a Christian committed such an act - well, it would be tough going to that elder, wouldn't it? The latter hadn't kept his road in good repair. It's just an example. To our credit, this type of elder is rare. I can't, off the top of my head, think of one. Our people keep things in perspective, whereas there are fundamentalist churches which seem almost solely devoted to anti-gay crusades . One could expand the application of roads to include any elder, about anything, who is known to be rough, or opinionated, or derisive (say - AlanF would make a good elder, I think! NOT!) even of just a person or two, or who is nursing a grudge over something. There would be plenty of potholes on that road. I would think twice before I drove it. If you have the time, I have the ears. There are places where the prophets say the Jews hadn't kept the law for decades, other than the picayune stuff.I can easily picture the cities of refuge being established, but not necessarily made use of during those times.

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

As far as I am concerned, if his posts roam free, there are effectively no standards here, and one is disingenuous to say that there are. I will admit, though - it is very strange - that I am almost getting fond of the old pork chop. To his credit, he pretty well admits as much, in that he is not one to countenance anyone being censured.

Why? Not exactly the same, but in The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Dumas ('dumb ass', per Shawshank Redemption) almost an entire chapter is devoted to 'ayslum'' Anybody, no matter how vile their deed, could flee to a section of the huge church and, as long as they stayed there, they were untouchable. They would not be turned over. I always thought - dare I say it? - that Friend's voice distracted in that it was so Shakesperian. I met him in our Kingdom Hall because he was friends with someone in the sister congregation. I was not happy to see him unexpectedly, because I had a part that night and I was insufficiently prepared. I needn't have worried. I had done these Q and A's before, and this part went smoothe. He sat in the audience like everyone else. He raised his hand for a question. I called on him and he answered like everyone else - not some uber profound answer from a Gilead instructor. Just a plain vanilla answer that any reasonably spiritual person might give.

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.  Â

He has returned! Fetch me the fattened bull. We are partying!

Mark Twain said something like: when I was 16 my dad was so ignorant I could barely stand to have him around. But when I was 21, I was amazed at how far the old man had come in such a short time.