TrueTom Conducts a Fine, Scholarly Discussion and Exchange of Ideas with Persons Who Really Don't Like the People He Hangs Out With

[TrueTomHarley]

Many Witnesses give the impression that they are trying hard to extend the length of their visit. I try to give the impression that I can’t get away quick enough.

This is especially useful when you feel locked into a paradigm of one of those full-sized plastic clowns for punching. You punch it and down it goes but because it is weighted at the bottom it immediately presents its smiling face for another punch. I try not to allow that to happen.

“Look, I don’t like you. Possibly, I could come to like you, but I don’t now. Let’s get this over with and see how it plays out.”

Of course, I don’t say this. In fact, I don’t even feel this way. I am friendly, but not at first over-sincere. Unfortunately, sincerity works well for civil people, but given the vicious disposition many display online, it is only to be expected that they will note your sincerity and take it as an invitation to smash you in the teeth with a baseball bat.

Go short, instead: “I’m Tom. I want to read you a scripture, see what you think of it, and I’m gone.” My experience is that I get to read it more often than I would with a more conventional approach. If they decline, I’m true to my word and leave. They frequently say: "No, but thank you for coming.”

When they say yes, I read them a scripture – you can choose whatever you want – and then: "I like this scripture because” and offer a sentence or two. It is now their turn, I point out. If you want to discuss or have questions or have observations or whatever, I can stay a bit. Otherwise, I move on.

If they seem agreeable, I’ll show them the video. “This runs almost four minutes, but you don’t have to watch it all. The minute it gets boring, hand it back.” They do hand it back sometimes. But not often.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Yesterday afternoon my wife and I were standing in line at a buffet restaurant, and I got into "lecture mode" to her, loud enough for the people ahead of us to overhear, about the theological ramifications of at Easter, getting the large hollow chocolate bunnies, and NOT eating the ears first.  I explained to her (for the benefit of the others in line...) that it was sacrilege and an obamanation ( yeah, I know...) to NOT eat the ears first, and an insult to start at the base. 

She has a tablet with some Caleb and Sophia videos, as well as the others, which would have been a good transition to theological cartoon characters., and Corporate Totems.

.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

JTR: That's completely the wrong way to do it, and you, a retired engineer, should know it.

You never eat the ears first, and while the base is permissible, it is not preferred. 

You always go first for the stomach.

[TrueTomHarley]

The funny thing about the thread that was removed is that the one justifiable cause for removing it was not there. One time that disgusting and ignorant hag of a Librarian reproved me, the old hen, for hawking my books, but I did not do it there that I can recall, though I might have a little. In fact, I do not do it anywhere, for I have come to realize it improper on a talk forum to plug my brilliantly written, zany but penetrating, doctrine-free (who cares about that stuff?) book about the faith which many brothers laugh out loud as they read it but some do not like it at all because it gives away many a fault like how you couldn’t get out in service on time because that pious character John Weedsnwheat kept rattling on and on and on about the daily text which I admit I never used to read because it is a bit-sized tidbit and I like something bigger but then one day I was assigned to conduct the reading of the text at the convention, and how I always wanted to jam with Prince, who is the subject of an entire chapter, but it was not to be in this system and will have to wait for the next because he was always busy and I – well, no – I would have found the time. It isn’t right to promote your book that way, though there are even worse things that will get you kicked off a thread and the entire thread hurled down with you, like the Chief Baddie was hurled into the abyss and all his baggage with him and so I never do it anymore, at least not too much, and oh and you know those plans you had for tonight? Cancel them so you can read my book, 30% preview of which is available for free and the remainder of which easily affordable and c’mon! you blow that much at Starbucks without the blinking of an eye.

[TrueTomHarley]

There sits happily on its own thread what is essentially a shoving match over whose child porn video is better. It could be allowed to stay there, but as with Ephesians 1, it is good to gather all things together. Plus, I've turned it over in my head and have some new ideas.

Our video is no good, says one villain, because pedophilia is there portrayed as a dark monster. She is unimpressed that Caleb and Sophia are told to immediately run and tell a parent should anyone try to touch them inappropriately. What if Mommy or Daddy is the abuser? she says. She prefers another video, in which off-limit areas are clearly demarcated, thus talking down to children, assuming they do not know their rear ends from their elbow.

Her video is not poorly done. But ours is better. Hers is but one more example of why children dislike school. It is one but more lecture from adults that assumes at the outset children have empty heads that they must fill. Ours, rather than lecturing, captures the imagination of the child. Having captured it, it drives the point home. "Even if it is someone you know or trust," Mommy warns.

The coup de grace, as far as I am concerned is that our video warns the child about ANYONE who would touch them innapropriately. Her video not only does not protect children in the event that the doctor is the abuser; it specifically says that it is okay for a doctor to touch private areas. Let us gather the 200 young women of the U.S Olympic team. Which video do they think would have protected them more?

[Anna]

Hey, I was the one who raised that point with the video, but I don't think I ever said it was no good. I just thought it would have been better had the pedophile started out as a normal person, because esentially that is how they start out. The video (at least what I see) assumes that a pedophile is immediately identifiable because there is something different about them. In this case they are like a monster. In reality though, children are groomed very carefully and the younger they are the easier deceived they are. I think it would have been better had they started out looking normal, and as friends, and then turned into a monster in sinc with inappropriate behavior. That would have been more realistic. The mention of "even if it is someone you trust" may possibly get overlooked by a child, since they are so focused on the monster. Children have very selective hearing you know.

I dont think children are stupid, but it has been shown by experiment that young children will go with a stranger DESPITE having been taught not to! Why? Because practice is very different from theory, and and even us adults have trouble with the two, how much more so young children.

On the other hand, I very much doubt the video was put together without any thoughts or imput from professionals. The society has used the services of Monica Applewhite a number of times. I would be interested to know the reason for the way the video was made.

I have not seen the other video. Did someone post it?

[TrueTomHarley]

You are not the villain. If you initially raised the subject, someone else picked it up and it is with her, not you, that there was a shoving match.

The other video is made by the Barbara Sinatra foundation. It is well done. But it is not foolproof.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You are not the villain. If you initially raised the subject, someone else picked it up and it is with her, not you, that there was a shoving match.

The other video is made by the Barbara Sinatra foundation. It is well done. But it is not foolproof.

I didn't think you meant me, at least I don't see myself as a villain, but I did initially raise the subject . I will check that video out. Thanks.

[TrueTomHarley]

For some time, i'd been wanting the run the 'Jehovah Will Treat His Loyal One in a Special Way' video past someone impartial to see if it would affect them as it does me. I settled upon an atheist kid - a kid only from my point of view, not one in reality, since anyone 30 years younger than I is a kid.

I liked him from the moment someone brought me along as backup after he had agreed to a return call. Did he think I was one of the top guns that had been summoned? Not sure what he was getting into, tactfully trying to set some ground rules, he probed: "I just want to make sure....if I should ask you to leave, you will leave, right?"

"You'll be lucky to get rid of us by midnight," I said, but then asked him how much time he had in mind. It was more than we would have presumed in the first place. 

So on the followup call, having a feel for the kid, I told him I wanted to do an experiment. I told him the video I wanted to show him was not preachy; in fact, there were no words. He would not understand much of it, I said, but not to worry. it was not a trap, and there would be no test at the end. As I had hoped, he was more than willing. He was eager for the challenge. He was a heady, curious guy and I figured he would be into that kind of thing. After watching the video I asked him to suggest a storyline for it, and that really sent him into overdrive.

Though I did it as much out of personal curiosity than an attempt to witness, clearly it works for the latter with a certain type of person - you couldn't just randomly show it at doors.

The weak link in this approach was something I had only vaguely suspected. It was ME. It was hard for me to stay dry-eyed watching it, and nearly impossible to do so explaining it. Did I make a fool of myself? Or might it have been an additional draw for him - to see how certain scenes and footage could reach the heart. After all, everyone knows how a Hollywood production can tug at the heart, though the storyline be pure fiction.

To be moved in such a way is for me not such a bad thing, and perhaps it is personal growth. I have never been one to wear my heart on my sleeve and I almost look forward to people dying so that I can give the funeral talk.

 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

If anyone cares enough to know what 'shoving match' TTH keeps harping on about, it's on this thread:

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

If anyone cares enough to know what 'shoving match' TTH keeps harping on about, it's on this thread.

 

It was a very long thread, too.

To say 'harping' is unkind. I don't dare do it, lest Ann or someone complains.

[Ann O'Maly]

18 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

To say 'harping' is unkind.

Well, you have written persistently (and imo unfairly) about our exchange, not only in the thread that was deleted, but again here so it's natural to gain the impression that it is constantly cycling through your mind.

Anyway, rather than having to guess at the backstory, readers can go to the original thread if they so wish and see how our exchanges actually went.