Lifted Up

I agree that such a claim is lame...although I would be mildly interested in who would make such a claim. We don't know each other, at least not through our GS postings. There are, of course, some who know each other to varying degrees by other means...like having met each other. Someone tell me, is anonymous testimony ever acceptable in court? I know lawyers make efforts to decrease the credibility of opposition witnesses; live people in the courtroom whose identity is known. Can there be any credibility at all for someone who is not known? Even when we know someone by name, we don't really know them very well if our only contact is through cyberland. I have used my name in all private e-mails, but who can really know how reliable I am if it is just through the puter? How much less we can know and trust someone who is completely anonymous? At least those I know as a person, however little or much, have to me a ring of reliability in what they say/post. Don't get me wrong...there are good, in some cases essential reasons for remaining anonymous. But it doesnt make someone's testimony believable. Also, the internet is not a record in the sense that it can be changed without leaving evidence that it has been changed. Even Nixon couldn't do that with his tapes; there was clear evidence of the ommisions. Not too long ago, I saw the contents of an interview on the internet changed (not on GS) after I had contacted the interviewee about what was said. Where does all this leave us in real life? Taking chances, risks, I guess, in trusting others. The risks are less than shutting ourselves off. especially since (IMHO) people generally are honest about what they say. And more importantly, because we can benefit so much from each others wisdom, experiences, and heart. But since this thread was open in the context of postings being truthful or not in the sense of legal court testimony, I made this response as I did.

Hey...hey...keep ypur eyes on the baseball when on this thread!

OK. In the context (remember your PFAL lesson) it seemed to be used in a derogatory sense. Or if you prefer, sarcastic.

Following this thread but not wanting to get into the fracas....so... for my info...who is Nurse Ratchett???

There definitely have been great changes in daily TWI life since I came in (the 70s)...from remembering very well my own life, and looking at the testimony of those in more recently. Daily life and finances were not scrutinized and controlled like they evidently later became.

No. I am not involved with any really. We go to a Russian Language church nearby.

P.S. I am not a Red Sox fan, but I (like many others) am much less a Yankee fan.

Definitely not a problem for the field umps. Dunno about the rescheduling, but the forfeit idea seems ridiculous. Even if there were some technicality in the rules that says it should be a forfiet, it wouldnt wash. Remember, the umpires were right about nullifying George Brett's home run years ago...but the league decided it was nitpicky, upheld the protest, and changed the rules.

GJ~~~I would love to hear that story. And of course, time is of the essence. Please, at your convenience pray tell. Rok On Song I'd like to hear it as well. I wasn't "lucky" enough to have TP do my deprogramming. I figure that's what you are talking about when you say "run in". But it wasnt fun.

I third the motion. NOt that anyone cares, but I actually have a few decent sprts memories from pick up games in TWI. Ralph Dubofsky was big on those softball games at HQ.

Can you be more specific? In any event, it sounds like a situation that would be decided eventually or totally by tle league bigwig(s), and not the umpires.

Sorry.

Even if we were screwing up our climate, it just couldnt happen that fast.

How about the "mass" witnessing and invitation, such as I saw at the Billy Graham crusade in town in 1987?

Can punmasters reign in this land? I once got Terry Wilson of WC6 fame to admit he had met his match.

When was that, may I ask? Reason I ask is that I got involved at Indy back in the '70s. My lightbearers time was in Durant, OK (in 1978 as noted aboce).

Two things: First, is that directed at everyone or someone in particular? Second, does it mean that if there is someone who can't control their feelings or thoughts, then you don't hate anyone's guts? After all, I willk do my best to understand, but my guts might take it personally. At least you didnt attack me like Simon did for stealing post number 4000. I am just guessing that you couldn't care less about that.

Well, if we apply our own standards and morals to what we think religion should be, of course we are going to see flaws.

Seems to fit well with the statement, "God won't tell someone else something about you until He first tells you." This statement rejected the idea of "God told me to tell you..."

I agree def59. I believe this as well. But if I didn't believe it, I would find it impossible to believe that if he would say such things which were not true, that he was a very special spiritual man. It would mark Him as the most arrogant one.

Two and a half games now. Meanwhile, the Indians, who have been trying so hard to dive back down below the White Sox, have finally made it. But neither team will have to worry about the postseason.

I guess. Jesus neither condemned the woman caught in adultrey, nor refrained from noting it was wrong ("Go and sin no more").

Indy, corps, and lightbearers buddy. Except for a couple times I have mentioned him (like on the General Patton thread), I have not seen him mentioned since I came onto Waydale at the start of 2000.

In the 8th (first year) , we were sent out in January 1978, for 15 days. We went again (in our case, to the same place) in May of that year, for 10 days.

If there were a way (OK, method, idea, person) which was not exclusive...open to EVERYBODY...each one would still have to accept it to get it. Then, suddenly, those who did not would be excluded. Kind of a paradox.