WordWolf

I know this because I was a JW.Born and raised in the cult.My Uncle died a year and a half ago from loss of blood.He lost 75% of his blood due to a bleed in his colon.He died because he refused blood and blood based products.He could have been saved by accepting one of these products now allowed by the JW's own Governing Body.He died at 56 years old.

Last I heard,

there was a time-period that the Watchtower Society (the JWs)

forbade organ transplants,

but they're ok now.

The strictest Jew following the most strict interpretations of the Mosaic Law,

and the Talmud and so on, WILL take a blood transfusion to say his life.

Supposedly, the restrictions governing transfusions are from the Old Testament.

If I understand correctly,

the current restrictions say that blood is forbidden to eat,

therefore it is also forbidden to transfuse to save a physical life,

and dying is superior to accepting a transfusion of blood.

Furthermore,

a transfusion of blood is forbidden,

but a transfusion of PART of the blood-

such as plasma or the like-

is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

Now, I didn't see a distinction in the eating blood thing,

but apparently the Watchtower Society DOES.

And it's a very SELECTIVE ONE.

So,

"eating blood = transfusing blood.

No eating blood =no transfusing blood.

Transfusing PART of the blood= acceptable to God.

Transfusing ALL of the blood=\= acceptable to God.

(Based on "no eating blood.)

Eating nonkosher red meat=acceptable to God

(despite containing blood, moreso than kosher red meat even.)

Transplants=acceptable to God,

and before transplants =\= acceptable to God,

and that was based on this same rule of blood."

This "rule" is needlessly capricious.

It stops some lives from being saved,

makes distinctions so fine as to gag a lawyer,

and does not stay the same from year to year.

Now that we've had time to discuss it, I'm almost surprised twi

never assumed this ruletook when they were regulating everything else.

=======================

"Do not pass 'GO'. Do not collect 10% of my income."

Correct!

Personally, I try to confine my RECENT songs to nothing that didn't come out after 1985-1986

to give the older posters a chance.

Personally, I'd prefer older posters try to make most of their songs ones that came

out after 1970,

to give the younger posters a chance.

This wouldn't apply to all songs, just most,

and is simply MY PREFERENCES.

Anyone can post whichever ones they want in their turn.

However, I think long stretches of obscure songs drive interest off the thread,

which chases off occassional or new players,

and I for one like to see all sorts of posters take a turn.

===============

So, it's Bluzeman's turn.

(Just to be official.)

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals,

I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants!"

"Vegetarian: from an old Indian word meaning 'bad hunter' "

Although I'm aware there are very preachy and obnoxious vegetarians and vegans out there,

they tend to leave me alone.

In fact, I've eaten at the same time with them, and they've left me alone.

I'm perfectly fine with adults eating whatever they want so long as it's not going to

kill them immediately.

Want to sit down to a plate of raw turnips? Fine with me.

Fish eyes? Knock yourself out. I'll be eating this tuna over here.

Dry wheat toast? Enjoy it.

The ones that put in the time and eat nutritionally-balanced stuff?

More power to them.

I'll be eating this meat in moderation.

The Surgeon General has determined that trying to take the food of my plate

can be hazardous to your health.

Hey, Wordwolf. How in the world can you insinuate to me I'm being rude when something like the above -- IN CAPITAL LETTERS< NO LESS -- is written to Bumpy who was absolutely NOT being condescending, but was simply expressing his opinion and observation?

I can make an observation about people in this cafe. I'm allowed, and so is Bumpy. Sometimes newcomers have a different way of seeing things.

I insinuated nothing about you.

I agreed with Tom's points, thus disagreed with you they lacked merit.

If you review my post, you'll see the word "rude" appears in quotes, right after a link.

That's a link to a sticky at the forum, which gives advice.

The main point was what I quoted and then repeated-

that there's no consensus, no ONE opinion, of posters.

( I still recommend reading the sticky.)

A number of times, new people arrive, decide we're all a homogenous lot,

and pass judgement on us. Looked a lot like something that was happening here.

Some might see Bumpy as doing exactly that.

It's a situation common enough to have gotten tiresome here.

You and Bumpy are entitled to your opinions. Mind you, some posters will rebut you if

they think the facts disagree with you. That's what I did there.

I also try not to gloss over anyone's posts when possible, which is another mistake

that's easy to make.

Next song.

"I'm not into your passport picture- I just like your nose."

Is this "Law and Order"?

Wow- an oldie I can get!

Finally!

This is "Chubby Clementine."

As for an artist who performed it,

I name DANNY AIELLO.

See,

when he hosted Saturday Night Live,

he did sang this song in his monologue.

Which is the only way I've heard the song.

For fun, here's a list of ideas JKR debunked on her own website,

complete with links.

Rumors menu: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours.cfm

"Section: Rumours

Harry will be asked to become Minister of Magic in book seven

Seventeen is much too young to enter politics."

Professor Lupin does not have a twin, Neville Longbottom was never

Peter Pettigrew's son, Crookshanks is not an animagus-he's a 1/2 Kneazle,

JKR has no prequels or sequels planned after Book 7,

Lily was never a Death Eater, and Lily and James are definitely dead,

neither Voldemort nor Dumbledore are related to Harry,

Luna and Neville don't "hook up",

Nicholas Flamel (alchemist) passed away after Book 1,

"none of the characters in the books has returned from the future"

(and thus Dumbledore is not Ron in the future sent back or anything),

Mrs Norris (Filch's cat) is just a cat,

Wormtail's silver hand will not be used to kill Remus Lupin,

and Stubby Boardman is not Sirius Black.

(Thus one is one I actually floated once, when challenged to come up

with the silliest theory possible. I then realized I made it sound

possible- as in "Sirius goes thru a Veil of TIME, and gets sent back

to the past, assumes an alias and lays low until he's pronounced dead,

then begins working behind the scenes...."

I didn't REALLY think this would be how he returns-I expect him to return,

but with different tools- but I would have gloated if it was correct.)

Her LAST rumor busted....

Section: Rumours

At the end of book seven, Harry and Voldemort will 'merge' to form a single persona who will command both the forces of good and of evil

This is not really a rumour, more a lone theory on the net that the son of a friend of mine pointed out to me. He wants me to repudiate it, so I'm repudiating: Harry will NOT merge with Voldemort to become a single entity, nor would Harry ever wish to command Death Eaters/Dementors/Inferi.

"

Meanwhile,

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq.c...f=aboutthebooks

here's the most useful of the FAQ answers...

"Section: F.A.Q.

(SPOILER WARNING)

Why did Harry have to forget the mirror he had been given by Sirius in 'Order of the Phoenix'?

I can’t give a full answer to this, because it is relevant to books six and seven. However, the short answer is that Harry was determined never to use the mirror, as is clearly stated in chapter 24: ‘he knew he would never use whatever it was’. For once in Harry’s life, he does not succumb to curiosity, he hides the mirror and the temptation away from himself, and then, when it might have been useful, he has forgotten it.

The mirror might not have helped as much as you think, but on the other hand, will help more than you think. You’ll have to read the final books to understand that!"

"Section: F.A.Q.

Will you write more Harry Potter books after the seventh?

If you mean more novels, then I think it highly unlikely. I’ve got enough story for seven books and I never planned to carry the story beyond the end of book seven. I might do an eighth book for charity, a kind of encyclopaedia of the world so that I could use all the extra material that’s not in the books... we’ll see!"

"Section: F.A.Q.

What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember my last'?)

Well, it is a relief to move on after the Mark Evans fiasco. This time, two out of the three poll questions had interesting answers (or so I think) and thank goodness you chose one of them.

So: Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, obviously because there were letters before that…

Now let the speculation begin, and mind you type clearly, I'll be watching…

P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)"

"Section: F.A.Q.

What is the significance of Neville being the other boy to whom the prophecy might have referred?

Finally, I am answering the poll question! I am sorry it has taken so long, but let me start by saying how glad I am that this was the question that received the most votes, because this was the one that I most wanted to answer. Some of you might not like what I am going to say – but I'll address that issue at the end of my response!

To recap: Neville was born on the 30th of July, the day before Harry, so he too was born 'as the seventh month dies'. His parents, who were both famous Aurors, had 'thrice defied' Voldemort, just as Lily and James had. Voldemort was therefore presented with the choice of two baby boys to whom the prophecy might apply. However, he did not entirely realise what the implications of attacking them might be, because he had not heard the entire prophecy. As Dumbledore says:

'He [the eavesdropper] only heard the beginning, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. Consequently, he could not warn his master that to attack you would be to risk transferring power to you.'

In effect, the prophecy gave Voldemort the choice of two candidates for his possible nemesis. In choosing which boy to murder, he was also (without realising it) choosing which boy to anoint as the Chosen One – to give him tools no other wizard possessed – the scar and the ability it conferred, a magical window into Voldemort's mind.

So what would have happened if Voldemort had decided that the pure-blood, not the half-blood, was the bigger threat? What would have happened if he had attacked Neville instead? Harry wonders this during the course of 'Half-Blood Prince' and concludes, rightly, that the answer hinges on whether or not one of Neville's parents would have been able, or prepared, to die for their son in the way that Lily died for Harry. If they hadn't, Neville would have been killed outright. Had Frank or Alice thrown themselves in front of Neville, however, the killing curse would have rebounded just as it did in Harry's case, and Neville would have been the one who survived with the lightning scar. What would this have meant? Would a Neville bearing the lightning scar have been as successful at evading Voldemort as Harry has been? Would Neville have had the qualities that have enabled Harry to remain strong and sane throughout all of his many ordeals? Although Dumbledore does not say as much, he does not believe so: he believes Voldemort did indeed choose the boy most likely to be able to topple him, for Harry's survival has not depended wholly or even mainly upon his scar.

So where does this leave Neville, the boy who was so nearly King? Well, it does not give him either hidden powers or a mysterious destiny. He remains a 'normal' wizarding boy, albeit one with a past, in its way, as tragic as Harry's.

As you saw in 'Order of the Phoenix,' however, Neville is not without his own latent strengths. It remains to be seen how he will feel if he ever finds out how close he came to being the Chosen One.

Some of you, who have been convinced that the prophecy marked Neville, in some mystical fashion, for a fate intertwined with Harry's, may find this answer rather dull.

Yet I was making what I felt was a significant point about Harry and Voldemort, and about prophecies themselves, in showing Neville as the also-ran. If neither boy was 'pre-ordained' before Voldemort's attack to become his possible vanquisher, then the prophecy (like the one the witches make to Macbeth, if anyone has read the play of the same name) becomes the catalyst for a situation that would never have occurred if it had not been made. Harry is propelled into a terrifying position he might never have sought, while Neville remains the tantalising 'might-have-been'. Destiny is a name often given in retrospect to choices that had dramatic consequences.

Of course, none of this should be taken to mean that Neville does not have a significant part to play in the last two novels, or the fight against Voldemort. As for the prophecy itself, it remains ambiguous, not only to readers, but to my characters. Prophecies (think of Nostradamus!) are usually open to many different interpretations. That is both their strength and their weakness."

BTW, the "Extra Stuff" section on the website is worth reviewing,

even if only for some characters and scenes that never "made the cut".

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff.cfm

Say,

did anyone here take either of the 2 WOMBAT exams?

What was your score?

And are you planning on taking the third?

WordWolf writes:

SS has been constrained by owing James Potter his life-which was compounded

when he passed on part of The Prophecy-not realizing he facilitated James' death.

Some other people keep guessing he was sorry to see Lily Potter killed, but I think

it was JAMES, for the reasons I just gave.

SS thus still owes Harry for that.

HOWEVER, James put SS in the line of danger by giving him information about the tunnel under the Whomping Willow - James saved SS to save his own neck because if SS had been hurt because of James' careless prank, it would have been James' hide on the line...

Just my thoughts...

Thing is, James and Severus are constrained to act under the rules in HP as outlined

by JKR, not by how you or I would call it.

(In those cases, SS might owe NOTHING.)

JKR had Dumbledore explain the situation, and HIS conclusion was that SS owed

James for saving his life.

DD may not be perfect, but he's as expert an expert on magic as the series has,

and he often serves as JKR's mouthpiece.

(Him or Hermione reading something in a book, as she's pointed out.)

Furthermore, Wormtail owes Harry a life, as seen in Book 3.

My personal theory:

Voldemort owes Harry a life, based on Book 4 and the use of Harry's blood

to return him to full life (or what passes for it.)

If not, I still have no explanation for the "gleam of triumph" in Dumbledore's eye

when Harry reported what happened.

The stupidest possible explanation was that DD was working for Voldy and wanted

him to win- I heard that one, if you can believe it.

Is this the episode that mentions "the wife of a Caesar"?

You didn't answer my question.

If you're still an active JW, it would be pointless to discuss this.

I used to date a dis-fellowshipped JW woman (df'ed for smoking cigarettes),

and this here was a HUGE topic for her as well.

We had many discussions on this topic -- and she has 4 kids.

Upshot of it is -- she said she WOULD NOT give blood,

even if it meant saving the life of one of her children.

Now that (to me) is NUTS!

So -- are you still active in the WTS?

How many people here have noticed that this RELEVANT question

(it affects the stance of the poster dramatically)

has been dodged at least TWICE so far?

Does anyone else think that's an answer in itself?

As in "I refuse to confirm my beliefs because I'm not proud enough to

declare my beliefs. I'm ashamed of my associations and will not

speak of them. But you should agree with the doctrines I've gotten

FROM them."

I prefer not to jump to conclusions, but, in lieu of anything other than

a DUCKING of the question REPEATEDLY,

by golly, a refusal to answer is indicative of the answer....

Bumpy -- Don't pay any attention to Tom Strange. He is WAY too sensitive.

I disagree on both counts.

Furthermore, I'll add he had 2 legitimate points which were glossed over:

A) some people arrive and are SWIFT to decide they know us all

B) some people arrive and operate under a delusion there's a consensus here

The main consensus is that there is NO consensus on virtually ANY issue.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=7913

"There is no one single opinion of the posters.

There is no universally-accepted opinion of the posters.

(There are even a few people who are convinced vpw never wronged anyone.)

Please try not to be accusatory, vicious or otherwise rude in posting."

You're right. So what DO people want? I think we all want people who don't take themselves too seriously. That's what's compelling about the GSCafe. But ironically, we do want them to be serious enough to be held accountable and humble enough to suck it up when they get off base. Which goes back to the initial post on this thread....leaders overestimating themselves.

The thing is... when people get off base, it's hard to respond in love yet with firm boundaries. It's hard to say, "I disagree, I think that is hurtful, and I love you but I cannot trust you right now." Our tendency is to deride, file harrassment, defamation suits and call for people's head on a stick.

What if KG came on this site and apologized to everyone here? Not some half-*** apology, but a real contrite accounting of wrongs? Would it be accepted? I seriously doubt it. Why? Because lots of people don't know the difference between forgiveness (letting it go) and trust (keeping healthy boundaries).

I would be shocked if some people did NOT accept it-

so long as it was perceived as coming from the heart,

springing from sufficient reflection and full contrition of the will.

No consensus here, remember?

Excuse me, if that is too psychological for some of you who don't believe in psychology.

Tonto -- so did you stay home and watch Bonanza or Lone Ranger? I had to miss Bionic Woman on Wednesday nights, and Disney on Sunday nights. Bummer.

[WordWolf responds in brackets and boldface again.]

Consider This.

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander

be put away from you

along with all malice

And be kind to one another, tender-hearted,

forgiving each other,

just as God in Christ has forgiven you."

Ephesians 6:32,33 NASB

[Let's be nice to each other. I can agree with this. Of course, this is not to the

exclusion of the verses counselling vigilance and the need to restore a brother

overtaken in a fault. Niceness sometimes means tough love or honesty, or

both.]

I don't expect to make any more posts, so let me leave you with this.

Then I'll be on my way.

[Leaving quickly after making a public statement?

That's not standard internet procedure- but it is standard procedure

for those whose opinions MUST be embraced wildly.

That's not a good sign...]

We are in a spiritual battle and we have an enemy who is playing for keeps,

he is lawless, he is cruel, and he is deceiving as all hell.

Our enemy is mot John Lynn

It is not Mark Graeser.

It is not Victor Paul Wierwille.

It is not the Scape Goat Du Jour

Our enemy is the spiritual wickedness in high places.

[i agree.

However, this gives nobody a free pass to hurt the brethren through harmful actions,

harmful doctrines, incompetence, or malfeasance.

And what did "the Scape Goat Du Jour" have to do with this?

Was that a suggestion that all of the men above were blameless

for their actions and inactions?]

My intention is to speak words of truth and light that are mighty

to the pulling down of strongholds.

[so you mean well. I can appreciate that. I still say that must be matched

to DOING well.]

[WordWolf snipped out a lecture on devils and demons,

and how accusations are-apparently- their fault.]

It may be well and good to recognize hurtful actions and words,

and criticise the sins of omission and commission.

It's a righteous thing to reprove, rebuke, and exhort

with all Longsuffering

[Now, I can again say I agree with you here.]

but do it in the Wisdom from Above

and look deeper to see what manner of spirit is underlieing the deeds.

is it holy or unholy?

[This is technically a good idea. However, placing it after the lecture

suggesting all exposing of evil-like we've done here- is actually demonic

and NEVER "in the Wisdom from Above",

this is sending an inconsistent message.

Is this meant to "cover all the bases" while still getting out the message

that exposing evil deeds is itself evil?]

and you must look to your Lord Jesus in order to see the spiritual reality.

and you must follow his lead

to Stand Therefore, in the Power of His Might.

[Technically, I agree with this. However, its position HERE following the

diatribe, makes it peculiar, and anomalous, and may even negate its

point.]

You can mark my words

or you can mock them.

[so,

we can agree with you, or we can be WRONG and act in EVIL.

Cute. Looks like we have another "False Dilemma."

Heads I win, tails you lose. "Have you stopped beating your wife-yes or no?"

Healthy disagreement is labelled "wrong" from the get-go.

That's NOT the way to treat your brethren in Christ.

You don't see me doing that with YOU, are you?

I'm evaluating everything, not just what I like, or just what I dislike.]

You can call them flowery and beautiful and imply there is no substance,

that I am a waybrained parrot, a weak-willed host to mind controling cult leaders.

That doesn't make them any less true.

[Now we see the famous "Poisoning the Well."

I commented previously that one statement of his was

"flowery and beautiful", and that it seemed to be used to excuse

the harmful actions of others.

Notice how my POINT was never addressed.

Some people may suspect that this is because I was correct, and it's

impossible to try to successfuly deny what's plainly true.

That is, that he WAS trying to excuse HARMFUL deeds by saying

that SOME good deeds cancel them out, so that some harming is

FINE if you're making enough good deeds in EXCHANGE.

Now, also notice that NOBODY said-nor suggested- that his words

had NO SUBSTANCE. That's a strawman he's decided to introduce

all his own.

Further, the "waybrained parrot" thing comes out of nowhere also.

This is not treating the words of his brethren honestly.

This is not the proper way to treat the UNBELIEVER, let alone family.

Would Jesus recommend doing this?

Is this "fellowshipping in Light"?

Finally, this "weak-willed host to mind-controlling cult leaders" thing.

Not only was THIS charge also invented by the speaker to make

his dissenters sound like they're labelling him when it's actually

HIM doing the labelling,

it's being done in a fashion one might consider SYSTEMATIC,

as if he's been taught to do so.

In other words, we never CLAIMED he was being mind-controlled,

but since he's brought the subject up,

he's sure SOUNDING like he might be.

Well, HE was the one that was making the comparison...

All the nasty labels so far are the ones HE invented and claimed

WE put on him.

That's not "lovingkindness."

That's not the love of God.

That's not a good commercial, if you wanted to convince me your

church is a proper, godly one.]

I forgive you.

you really don't know what you're saying.

[someone doesn't know what they're saying, I suspect.

What's next, charges we're typing under automatic writing

influences of demons?]

I probablly remind you of someone else.

I am not offended.

I just wonder why.

[Then you might try READING the opposing viewpoint,

rather than just cherry-picking it for something to attack.]

I wonder why someone has a problem with a vision to provide Christian Education across the globe.

False Dilemma.

Nobody said the GOAL was bad.

We said the EXECUTION needed an overhaul.

But hey, what's another Strawman, more or less?]

I wonder why the enmemy has found a way to get in and start to break up all the work towards accomplishing that vision.

["You may agree with me or you can be under demonic influence!"

Pretty.

Actually, if you want to know how the enemy found a way in to damage the effectiveness

of CES, you'll need to look IN CES, and consider how pride comes before

destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

I'll give you that one for free.]

I wonder what I could or should have done differently

that might have nade a godly difference.

[Well, you might have addressed the problems internally in CES.

While here, you might have focused more on the godly love,

and less on the "attack anything that disagrees with CES" front.

That's another one for free.

Or were those meant as supposedly unanswerable questions?]

I am grieved

and come to my Savior

to dwell in the fellowship of Light with Him

in the arms of my Father, God.,

and am cleansed again from all unrighteousness.

Come on In

The door is open

to anyone who wants to step out of the darkness

and into the Light and Love of Christ

and when I say

God Bless You

I Love You

You Are the Best

it's a message from the Christ in Me

to the Christ in You

It is the goodness of God that leads to repentance

and nothing shall separate us from His Love

Peace in Christ Jesus

and Glory be to The Father in Heaven

forever and ever

[summary:

"All of you who disagree with me are under demonic influence, and are aiding

and abetting the goals of the devils in the world.

You speak out of ignorance, and lack substance.

God bless you, I love you so much."

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Was that pious closing meant to somehow cover for the cheapshots,

fallacies, and insults above?

Jesus didn't operate that way when he was on this Earth...

and he never advocated that WE do that, either.]

You know Estimated, I can see a real disconnect going on in your words and from this your thinking on this matter. Has anyone from Grease Spot Cafe ever sued a brother or a sister in the name of Christian ministry? Has anyone here seen spiders coming out of others noses or demons infested in others and then used this as a smear tactic for political/religious gain? And tell us how your own words, essentially telling others to pay special attention to all the demons supposedly causing all the problems in the world compare with Jesus' words in the gospels, when he said to rejoice not that we have power over demons, but to rejoice that our names are written in heaven? You know I have heard to much of what you are bringing to the table here with your in essence, glorificiation of demons to let your comments slip idily under the table. We saw this with TWI and now we are seeing this with some of your posts here. This may sound blunt, but you really sound like a double minded man. You are not doing yourself or others any favors with your thinking and words. If you want to truly be an example of Christ and be kind, tender hearted, forgiving one another as Christ forgave you as you profess at the beginning of your post above then please do so. But don't get side tracked any longer on this subtle form of demon worship like we had in TWI that your last post is clearly professing. Am I making myself clear on this? Or can you not see that most of your above post does not glorify Jesus Christ or speak edification, but instead tells others to mostly look out and watch out for demons which it sounds like you see behind every bush and under every table. Your words and fixation is first of all harmful to yourself, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Secondarily it makes a mockery of what it is to be a minister of the Lord Jesus while spreading the gospel.

And another thing Estimated. We all have to take responsibility for our words and actions. This is so that we can grow up into him who is Christ Jesus. Let's pray that the CES leaders get a realization of what their words and actions have caused and how they have not always educated or shown Christ's love to others. In fact, that they have sometimes been destructive to others faith. If we are in grave error and don't really know about it. How are we going to grow up into Him, who is the head of the body, the Lord Jesus Christ?

That's just one reminder why I don't try to engage in rational discussions on this subject.

I came to my conclusion, and posters on both sides are welcome to disagree with it,

and I save a lot of time not trying to promote it-or attack either side.

One of the drawbacks of open discussion on an open board is there's no quality

control, so some of the excellent posts on this thread get mixed in with posts

that aren't excellent. Just the cost of doing business....

The main motivation VP had for teaching the law of believing was to counter the popular teaching of his day that it was sinful to want to have nice stuff or to be affluent. Or that you had to wish upon a star if you wanted certain results. Rather, that God was very willing to help people realize personal goals.

IMO it was not loving to criticize people for not believing. Such criticism doesn't help the person do better.

So,

how did the fire-engine red drapes

and the woman who killed her child by believing a car to ram into him

figure into this?

The chilling title of the last book of the Harry Potter series has been unveiled.

However, a release date for the book has not been unveiled. I've heard some rumors that 07/07/07 is the release date, but who knows.

Some bookstores seem to be using that date as a guideline.

However, that's the anniversary of the London Subway bombings in 2005.

JKR is well aware of that, and change the reading she was going to do from

the not-yet-released Book 6, since she was doing it just after the attack.

She went from reading from Chapter 1, to later with Weasley's Wizarding Wheezes.

I doubt she'd change it otherwise.

All the date speculation seems based ENTIRELY on the idea that JKR is obsessed

with 7s. (Which is odd, since 12s show up a lot in the series.)

JKR has previously said never to believe anything about HP whose source was not

JKR HERSELF, Scholastic (for the books) or Warner Brothers (for the films).

I finally heard a speculation that I think may be true.

Based on the discussions in Book 1, Chapter 1,

she may release it on the anniversary of the Godric's Hollow incident in Book 1,

which would be a few months later than 7/7.

Besides, 7/7 makes for a VERY short timetable to write, edit, correct,

print, and distribute the whole thing.

The net is now abuzz with stories, theories, wild guesses and excitement about the upcoming book.

And... what are your theories?

Is Snape good or bad?

How is the story going to end? Will Harry live or Voldemort?

What news have you heard about it?

Here's a quick answer to each question you asked,

all in my opinion, which is not binding on JKR whatsoever.

A) Snape is neither good nor bad. In Macchiavelli's "the Art of War", he mentioned

Septimius Severus, a clever fellow who played one ruler off another, while being

on neither's side. Likewise, I think Severus Snape is on his OWN side.

I believe his actions at the end of Book 6 where specifically arranged between him

and DD earlier in the book, during the obvious scenes. His avoidance of the

Dark Arts-and even the DaDA job- has been likened to keeping an alcoholic from

liquor, where he'd hate being FORCED to take a drink to accomplish some goal.

I believe he's mostly been on the OotP's side, since he is the ONLY person who

could have warned the OotP about the MoM raid in Book 5

(I can eliminate all other possible characters from sending it),

and there is no reason to warn the OotP if he was working for the DEs.

(With no notice, the DEs would have had The Prophecy, Harry, and

hostages. Plus whatever else they could carry off-like that case of Time-Turners

they destroyed instead.)

SS has been constrained by owing James Potter his life-which was compounded

when he passed on part of The Prophecy-not realizing he facilitated James' death.

Some other people keep guessing he was sorry to see Lily Potter killed, but I think

it was JAMES, for the reasons I just gave.

SS thus still owes Harry for that.

B) I believe Harry will win, and Voldy will be EFFECTIVELY killed, becoming a non-character

without literally dying. I believe Harry will be seen raising a family in the last chapter.

C) What news have I heard? That would take some explaining.

JKR accidentally slipped, though, and confirmed Harry, Ron and Hermioned all survive.

Petunia does NOT do magic, but someone else does unexpectedly.

Speculation fingers Argus Filch.

Stuff like that.

D) It's my own personal speculation that Harry, Neville and Luna will enter a

specific location at dusk on April 30, using Neville's mimbulus mimbletonia to activate

the location's 2-way portal to the lands of the dead,

enter it and rescue Sirius Black,

and return by dawn, leaving behind the plant, but using the mirror to retrieve him,

and just maybe trapping Voldemort in the lands of the dead instead.

Can we take it as a given that this entire thread is nothing BUT SPOILERS,

for those who havent read Books 1-6?

I'd like to warn them about that....

ALL OF YOU WHO HAVENT READ HP BOOKS 1-6,

THIS THREAD WILL GIVE AWAY A LOT!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, it would seem like feelings would always be a problem, for at least one or more of the participants, at some point.

Like lines of emotional intimacy being crossed.

Ah, but there's the rub!

See, "enlightened modern 21st century adults", as in "the people who always want to excuse any

activity by telling you what year it is", supposedly are able to compartmentalize their

emotions and lives, and pretend there are no consequences so long as nobody gets

a disease and it's all consensual.

Mind you, I think that's self-delusion, and that consequences WILL come back to

haunt them. (Unless this is more the SYMPTOM of some earlier trauma, some coping mechanism,

which would mean they have bigger problems than this.)

I think many ex-twiers are already familiar with what happens when you pretend

emotions can just be switched off. (And some more still think they can switch them

off and everything's just peachy.)

I found this article just now when looking for references to Pathological Lying and the DSM-IV.

(The DSM-IV is the current manual defining mental illnesses and their symptoms.)

http://pn/psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/38/1/24

I'd like to point out that it defines confabulation differently than any previous

article I've quoted on the subject, and this is relevant to the article.

Here's some interesting quotes from it.

" "In pathological lying, telling lies may often seem to be an end in itself . . . .the pathological liar may become a prisoner of his lies, [and] the desired personality of the pathological liar may overwhelm the actual one." "

"Unlike other forms of lying, pathological lying appears to be unplanned and impulsive, he explained. "It is questionable whether it is always a conscious act and whether pathological liars have control over their lies." "

" It can also be differentiated from confabulation, "a falsification of memory occurring in clear consciousness in association with organically derived amnesia. The patient attempts to cover exposed memory gaps with the confabulated materials," he said. There is no organically based amnesia propelling pathological lying. "

"Pathological liars may admit the falsehoods they’ve told when confronted and often proceed to change their stories. As a result, it may not, however, always be simple to distinguish pathological lying from delusional disorders."

"Some could confuse narcissistic personality disorder with pathological lying, but in the former "lies are told mainly for self-aggrandizement, and this is often obvious to the audience," he pointed out. "

"One area in which the differentiation is not clear cut is borderline personality disorder, he said. "Pathological lying is not uncommon in patients with borderline personality disorder [in which] the core characteristics foster falsifications." Reality distortions common to this disorder, "along with lack of impulse control and the defense mechanisms of denial, idealization, and devaluation, are fertile grounds for pathological lying." "

IIRC, we've previously discussed both Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder,

and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and the differences between the types of lying and the reasons.

(IIRC, this discussion didnt go far, either.)

Do you have the rest of that poem?

I would love it if you do.

“I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day; I'd rather one should walk with me than merely tell the way: The eye's a better pupil and more willing than the ear, fine counsel is confusing, but example's always clear.”-

Edgar A. Guest.

"I'D Rather See A Sermon by BRUCE CARROLL

I'd see him go to church almost every Sunday

He had invited me to go a time or two

made no bones about the fact that he was a Christian

And he seemed to know I was looking for some truth

Never looked at me with eyes of condemnation

though he knew I was uneasy when he pray

he was always there to lend a hand

and when he did he'd always say

that the good Lord and his blessing

are what made him act that way

I'd rather see a sermon

than to hear one anyday

I'd rather one would walk with me

than merely show the way

Actions speak much louder

than all the words can say

That's why I'd rather see a sermon

than hear one anyday

There were times that I would see him from a distance

and he didn't know that I was watching him

he always took the time to love his children

and he treated his wife like his best friend

I got the call two weeks ago this Monday

that the job I had ten years was at the end

he was the first to call and show up on my doorstep

and he said that he would be there

till we got on our feet again

I'd rather see a sermon

than to hear one anyday

I'd rather one would walk with me

than merely show the way

Actions speak much louder

than all the words can say

That's why I'd rather see a sermon

than hear one anyday

I never was much for religion

too many double-standard people let me down

but the message this man lived was very simple

he showed me what I needed

and he was there when I let Jesus

turn my life around

I'd rather see a sermon

than to hear one anyday

I'd rather one would walk with me

than merely show the way

Actions speak much louder

than all the words can say

That's why I'd rather see a sermon

than hear one anyday

That's why I'd rather see a sermon

than hear one anyday"

Ok, let's see....

"...the sound a dog makes."

"Um............who is John Cafferty and the Beaver Brown Band, thankyouverymuch, I'll take Animal Sounds for $800 please!"

"No! Good Lord! We would've accepted 'bow-wow' or 'ruff'!"

"Ah, ruff. Just the way your mother likes it!"

"the category was Numbers, and you wrote.. ..a letter V. Well, I tell you what, my friend - V is a Roman numeral, so despite your best efforts, you answered correctly."

Those were from their Celebrity Jeopardy parodies. They kept bringing in a Sean Connery who kept

making rude comments about Alex Trebek's mother. And the celebrities could never get ANYTHING

right. Even Trebek himself has said he'd never keep his cool if faced with contestants that rude.

"Outer Space: The Last Frontier.

These are the trips of the Star Trek Enterprise. Its five year plan calls for us to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly fly where no man has gone in space. Live long, and be happy."

Patrick Stewart's monologue, when he hosts SNL. He deadpans that he's a Star Trek fountain

of trivia-and proceeds to recite all sorts of incorrect trivia. He dedicated this recital of

the traditional Star Trek opening-which is obviously incorrect- to Leonard Portnoy.

You know, the other medical officer, Dr Spock, the half-human, half-Volcano...

"We're very busy right now! If you haven't heard, Voldemort has returned and is trying to recruit the Dementors to take over Hogwarts!"

"Hey, Potter, cool it with the nerd stuff. Shut up."

"Listen, we got a place off campus and a mini-fridge filled with butterbeer."

"I'm sorry boys, we can't waste time. We'll celebrate after we defeat Voldemort."

"What a tease."

Lindsay Lohan hosts SNL. She plays Hermione in a Harry Potter spoof.

She's the only one who doesn't realize she's physically a lot hotter after the summer than she

was at the beginning of the summer, and all the guys keep reacting. In this quote,

Fred and George are trying to get somewhere with her.

""Hey! Who's that Spartan doin' some Tai Chi?"

"It's me! It's me!"

""I said who's that Spartan doin' some Tai Chi?"

"It's me! It's me!"

One of the many cheerleading segments, with the cheerleaders that never quite

make it onto the real Spartan cheerleading team, and show up to cheer for events

that they don't make, like swim meets and chess tournaments.

"I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with."

"I'm going to do a terrific show today! And I'm gonna help people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!"

The opening for "Daily Affirmation, with Stuart Smalley."

"Well, I can tell by the empty bottle of Courvoisier that it is time to say goodnight."

The traditional signal for Leon Phelps, Ladies Man, to close his show-

he's out of Courvoisier.

And Frasier's had, like, a 10-year run, and I commented this show lasted a lot longer.

SNL's had more than 25 years in its run so far....

Go, Raf!

Oh come on: gotta be Saturday Night Live

Gotta be, and is.

Any suggestions for good (as in safe) locations for graphics? (I have tried a number of different pages of graphics and they either cost or I had to do a survey to get to the pictures, and then web site was asking me to download their program. )

Depends on how good you think Photobucket and Imageshack are.

I know I didn't have to download or pay anything to use either.

Probably depends on what you want to host.

An avatar would be a piece of cake,

but, say, an entire comic-book might be too much for free.

"Frazier"?

George

Nothing with such a short tv run.....

I wish some other posters would check in.

I'm sure a number of them could name this by now if they read the quotes....

So far, we've gotten farther than I expected.

Some people are willing to discuss this, but there's a lot of dogmatism

on both sides, so some posters may not be participating intellectually

to the same degree as the others, relying more on knee-jerk reactions

than actual discussion.

Now, one thing that's come up, which I think many of us can agree on,

is that both sides have some merit, and make some good points,

and likewise are unable to refute well certain other points.

Thus, I have arrived at a position guaranteed to tick off both sides.

When seeking understanding of something, one rule of thumb is

Ockham's Razor. It's a tool for eliminating incorrect possibilities.

The main part of the rule states that when two or more explanations fully

explain something, the simpler one is the correct answer.

That's sufficient for most situations.

There's another part to that, however.

When two or more explanations explain something, but none of them

FULLY explain it, then NONE of them are correct, and the correct

answer is still missing.

Having seen both sides offer their explanations over the years,

I personally will apply Ockham's Razor to this, and say that it

is my informed opinion that NEITHER side is ENTIRELY correct,

and the TRUE answer is something else, a third option which might

be considered "in between", or might not.

(I've reviewed the other positions I've seen as well, and find they are

less able to explain fully than the 2 positions we're discussing.)

So, it is my informed opinion that I don't know the answer, but it's

not one of the answers currently being offered.

Told you I'd tick off everybody at the same time....