many years ago, we lived in a world where the one tv in your house might be black and white, perhaps color if you were lucky, but either way the screen was small and the arial on your house would struggle to deliver a decent signal but often fail in a fuzzy mess.
most of the movies you saw were old, there was no home video or rental - you got a chance to see something and then it was gone.
planning your viewing was important to make sure you didn't miss something so you'd carefully scan the tv guide to pick out your favourites ... good job there were only 2 or 3 channels to look through.. but you could still see quality if you went to the movie theatre and there you got to see glorious film on a giant screen (which is only now being equalled quality wise).
Plus there was a woman in Fright Night (1985). Anyone remember the vampire next door (Jerry Dandridge, played by Chris Sarandon) seducing a young topless women ... with the whole scene being spied on by Charley Brewster?
I think that was the first time I saw breasts on screen (I was 12).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8BBGyYLcbs
It isn't just seeing this beautiful woman, it's listening to the musical score, too, that takes me back to being a 12 year old kid.
many years ago, we lived in a world where the one tv in your house might be black and white, perhaps color if you were lucky, but either way the screen was small and the arial on your house would struggle to deliver a decent signal but often fail in a fuzzy mess.
most of the movies you saw were old, there was no home video or rental - you got a chance to see something and then it was gone.
planning your viewing was important to make sure you didn't miss something so you'd carefully scan the tv guide to pick out your favourites ... good job there were only 2 or 3 channels to look through.. but you could still see quality if you went to the movie theatre and there you got to see glorious film on a giant screen (which is only now being equalled quality wise).
There were two on-screen crushes I had, from what I remember: there was Heather Langenkamp as Nancy Thompson in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) ...
in fact, several "wtf"s, not least - why were you visiting a convicted pedophile after his release from prison, never-mind having any contact with him in the first place when his preoclivities seemed to be an open secret.. and the best he can some up with is "i don't remember"?
you don't remember?
there's a fucking photo of you with one of the victims and accessories to the crimes you dumb fuck!.
Read Piers Morgan's article. Wow.
It seems Andrew has some questions to answer.
in fact, several "wtf"s, not least - why were you visiting a convicted pedophile after his release from prison, never-mind having any contact with him in the first place when his preoclivities seemed to be an open secret.. and the best he can some up with is "i don't remember"?
you don't remember?
there's a fucking photo of you with one of the victims and accessories to the crimes you dumb fuck!.
I've seen articles online about Andrew's interview but haven't read about it.
As far as I can tell, it seems to be a case of the upper classes doing whatever they like, as if normal rules didn't apply to them.
Maybe somone should burst Andrew's bubble - perhaps a lawyer working pro bono for the poor people who were abused at Epstein's place.
Edit: will read Piers Morgan's article later.
last evening (15 nov 2019) at a high school football game in new jersey, another shooting.
"fortunately," the injuries are apparently not life threatening.. that's at least the second shooting this week.
if all the students were armed, they could have just shot the guy.. we need more guns, not less.
Schools in the USA have a serious problem of lone students shooting other children.
Clearly, there needs to be effective solutions.
One effective solution could be trained people being employed as armed security.
A crazy 16 year old armed with a gun is very powerful. Only an appropriately armed and trained adult can stop him.
So, yeah, armed security in schools could work.
that’s my attitude toward anyone making an assertion.
i’m sick of people saying such and such is true simply because we are saying it.
i would think that those here would agree because we all have been jehovah’s witnesses.
The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of the people making the assertion. That's how science works. It's also fundamental for intelligent debate.
E.g.
"Science is sexist" - well, what evidence do you have to support your assertion?
"Trump is not only a racist, he's also a fascist" - again, show me the evidence, please.
"The USA is racist" - er, you're not stupid, you get the idea.
"Jeremy Corbyn hates Jews" - again: evidence, please.
Yeah, good thread Min- people who make assertions need to provide supporting evidence. Otherwise, they might be talking crap.
That's how science works; that's how intelligent debate works.
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
some people on this forum have said that they never really believed any aspect of wt teaching, that they couldn't wait to get free of it all.. others seems to have been really gung ho, believing it all until something happened that got you questioning "the truth.".
i would say my own high water mark was about 50%, which put me squarely on the fence, trying to decide if i should be in or out.. how about you?.
At one stage I believed most, if not all, of it - especially when I was working to meet the conditions for baptism.
Things kinda changed when the GB suddenly changed the 1914 teaching in Nov 1995. They had painted themselves into a corner of a room, then just decided to walk out, stepping in all the paint. That same Watchtower also had an article about what to do (or not do) in the event of allegations of child abuse.
would it be all-right with you if a translator removes "jesus'" name completely from the new testament and replaces it with a substitute, like "master" throughout?.
Jesus and his followers were all Jewish and so they had Hebrew names — although they would likely have spoken Aramaic. The “J” sound used to pronounce Jesus’ name does not exist in Hebrew or Aramaic, which is strong evidence that Jesus was called something entirely different by his contemporaries - true, the letter J doesn't exist in Hebrew and Aramaic.
But Jesus's real name in either Hebrew or Aramaic isn't as different as Joe is from Patrick - that's a false equivalent, I think.
Jesus is the Latin version of Yeshua. An alternative English equivalent seems to be Joshua.
You can replace 'Jesus' with 'Yeshua' or the Aramaic equivalent and that would be ok. You can't replace it with Joe or Patrick, tho ...
i was looking at the world health org.
report and it shows the us ranks 37th in the world (tied with albania) for combined male/female life expectancy.
the top 5 were japan, switzerland, singapore, israel and spain, all around 83 years.
are Canadians less stressed than Americans that ultimately affects their health? If so, why? - Canada has much lower population density.
Amount of people per square km is much lower.
That's gotta be one factor why Canadians live longer - less crime, less stress, etc.
i know bad cops exist in many cities.
i know some cops who aren’t “bad” but do have an attitude.
however, i prefer to have law and order as opposed to chaos.
Saying black people are genetically predisposed to violence and low IQ is flat out racist sir - no, Simon didn't actually say this. Please stop putting words in his mouth.
He pointed out that black people proportionately commit more crime, then wondered out aloud if genetics were involved. That's all.
And mean IQ varies according to ethnic group (just as mean percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers, mean bone density, and mean percentage of melanin do). Different ethnic groups split many thousands of years ago and evolved mostly in isolation. Natural selection acts on different organs and body parts. All this may be an uncomfortable fact, but, sorry, it's a fact nonetheless.
This is an adult discussion. And adult discussions call for people of differing opinions to discuss difficult, sensitive topics.
