there was a letter posted on the congregation bulletin board.. it said that one can plan and put an application to rent brooklyn rooms for up to 3 days?.
anyone know the details?.
is contribution necessary?.
Holy s**t! I should go down there, get a room, not donate and bring a woman along for some wonderful fornicating! Wow that would just feel awesome!
"Brother truthsetsonefree, may I ask who is this...young lady that you are bringing to your room?"
"Oh, you mean Safari? I met her at Scores, that strip club in Midtown...just joking! I looked her up in the escort section..."
there was a letter posted on the congregation bulletin board.. it said that one can plan and put an application to rent brooklyn rooms for up to 3 days?.
anyone know the details?.
is contribution necessary?.
Argh, hate this double posting...
in george orwell's novel 'nineteen eighty-four' the capitulation of the principal protagonist is portrayed in his willingness to assent to the proposition that two and two make five.
once he had denied objective reality, his mental conquest was complete and he was no longer truly the master of his own mind.
nineteen eighty-four is in many ways, a very depressing read.. a charge commonly leveled at jehovah's witnesses is that the type of mind control envisioned by orwell has been and continues to be used on them.
Alice, which flavor of Kool-Aid is the best?
so as not to hijack another thread, just a few comments on why we (americans) find that soccer is generally a boring game to watch.. 1. lack of scoring: american football adjusts the rules periodically so that each team averages around 3 touchdowns per game.
basketball added the three-point line to encourage more scoring.
even traditional baseball has tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring.
you don't really "get" football. It's a much older game than your american football so most people don't want loads of technology introduced like very accurate clocks, video replays, coaches with huge motorola headsets etc. The fact that decisions are made my an error-prone human makes the game on the whole more interesting as you get controversies etc. Making it all robotic would just rob the game of the 'romance'.
First of all, American football originated just like rugby and football from many of the English forms of "football" that also involved carrying the ball and hardly resemble the sports we know....so to say that soccer older then American football is incorrect. Also, although the NFL was started in 1923, college football has been around since the late 19th century and started about the same time as the F.A. Cup! As far as the technology is concerned, I once again note that the thoroughly English sports of Rugby and Cricket both use technology in their sports and have not lost the "romance" you mentioned. In fact, you actually have highlighted what I was saying about previous objections being rooted more in anti-American sentiment rather then logic....
BTW, before you put me off as some American who doesn't really love soccer, I have on my desk "Football Grounds Of Britain" by Simon Inglis, my favorite team is Newcastle United (I know, I know), and I much rather have singing in the stands then people yelling "CHARGE!" over and over. But the backlash over technology and saying that it would ruin the "romance" is more nostalgia then anything...do you think that it is romantic to lose because a ref signals goal even though the ball goes a yard wide like at Watford vs. Reading in 2008? Thought so.
so as not to hijack another thread, just a few comments on why we (americans) find that soccer is generally a boring game to watch.. 1. lack of scoring: american football adjusts the rules periodically so that each team averages around 3 touchdowns per game.
basketball added the three-point line to encourage more scoring.
even traditional baseball has tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring.
Maybe it is my work PC but I keep double posting...sorry.
something like: "would jesus do that/go there?
" i tell them: "would he own a luxurious bmw or mercendes?".
what are some quotes/expressions invented by jw's that really pissed you off?.
"Did you hear about the earthquake in (insert_location)? It is a sign..."
or
"Did you hear about (insert_horrible_new_story)? It is a sign..."
I don't know why but the tracking of EVERY SINGLE TREMOR or EVERY SINGLE BAD STORY and then calling it a "sign of the end of this system" is so f**king annoying because it is like these people believe that life before 1914 was sunshine and rainbows! Hey, natural disasters and evil humans have been around for millennia, people, it isn't a new thing!
something like: "would jesus do that/go there?
" i tell them: "would he own a luxurious bmw or mercendes?".
what are some quotes/expressions invented by jw's that really pissed you off?.
Another double post...this is annoying. Sorry :-(
so as not to hijack another thread, just a few comments on why we (americans) find that soccer is generally a boring game to watch.. 1. lack of scoring: american football adjusts the rules periodically so that each team averages around 3 touchdowns per game.
basketball added the three-point line to encourage more scoring.
even traditional baseball has tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring.
OK, before I continue, I am just going to state that I am an American born and raised in Orange County, NY...but I am also a soccer fan who recently got into the game (after the last World Cup in 2006). So, onto the friendly debate...
1.) Lack of scoring: American football adjusts the rules periodically so that each team averages around 3 touchdowns per game. Basketball added the three-point line to encourage more scoring. Even traditional baseball has tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring. Solution: Make the Soccer goal about a meter (yard) wider
I think this is one issue that will never be satisfactorily settled as far as the average casual American sports fan is concerned and that is because our sports culture is very statistics-oriented compared with the rest of the world. We love our ERAs, homeruns, yards per game, field goal percentages....but you look at soccer and how many statistics do you see that people really pay attention to in the sport around the world? Sure, they record how much players run and such but otherwise fans are only concerned about who scored enough to win at the end of the day. Hell, the old Italian axiom is that a 0-0 game is the sign of no mistakes by either team rather then two moribund squads playing kick-about (then again, the Italians are out of the Cup). I understand why more Americans want to see more scoring and the World Cup has had a paucity of goals in the first round but there are club leagues around the world (such as Spain) where scoring is more prevalent...I think this "problem" is more cultural then an actual issue.
2.) Game clock: Every other sport uses a real-time live clock so viewers, and the players, can see exactly how much time remains in the game. But Soccer has the referee looking at his watch periodically to determine how much time is left. This is crazy. If a player is injured, the referee should simply stop the game clock. That's it! They do it in every other sport I can think of that uses a game clock. The mystery "additional time" added by the referee is nuts.
While I agree with your sentiment that "stoppage time" is confusing in the way it is currently implemented, I quite like the quirkiness of it. That said, the one thing I would change is that instead of having the referee doing the timekeeping, I would have the fourth official on the sideline handle it.
3. Number of referees: Soccer uses 3 on field and 2 off field. On a slightly smaller field, American football uses twice as many.
A hockey rink has 3 on-ice officials and 2 linesmen; soccer usually has a 4 man crew consisting of a on-field referee, two linesmen for offside calls AND for also calling infractions they see and a fourth official on the sideline who coordinates substitutions and also communication from off-field participants such as managers. FIFA has been experimenting with adding an official behind each goal for a total of 5 officials on the field...quite honestly, if you watch a lot of soccer, you will quickly realize that 4 officials is more then enough when properly trained. Soccer doesn't have an issue with the number of referees, it has an issue with proper training and quality of referees.
4. Faking injuries: The referees should review the game afterwards as they do in American football. When some it taking a dive and faking an injury, they should be suspended for 3 or more games. That would end that crap quickly!
Totally agree...I would be amazed to find a non-xenophobic fan out there who would disagree. It is amazing that in an age of slo-mo shots that players still get away with rolling around feigning injury as if they are trying to convince their parents they can't go to school! Within the last two years, I have seen more referees give cards for diving but without post-game suspensions I cannot see this problem being solved...which brings us to...
5. Instant replay: Why not have instant replay for questionable goals, off-sides leading to a goal or other game-changing events. Even traditional baseball now uses limited replays and is planning on expanding its use in the future. We simply don't like to see a game decided on an event that the referee could not see or called incorrectly.
OK, first, let's get to the reason this hasn't changed: tradition. See, you say "Even traditional baseball now uses limited replays" but how hard was it to get them to use it? Hell, even in baseball they only use replay on homeruns; did you forget last month when everyone except Jim Joyce knew that Jason Donald was out during Armando Galarraga's perfect game? Joyce would of loved to see a replay (including that it was a HISTORY changing call and it was the last out of the game) but he wasn't allowed due to traditional reason of not overturning "safe/out" calls on replay and MLB will not change the result despite having evidence. Tradition is a funny thing in that despite people knowing that something is stupid they will not change it because of misplaced nostalgia for simpler times...
That said, it is time for not only replay but also for goal-line technology in international football; first, there is a dedicated 4th official on the sideline already who could easily take a quick look and find out if a goal is valid if there is any dispute. Second, the issue of time being added to the game for replays is stupid since so much time after a goal is already taken up by celebrations and more time can be added on in stoppage time if a review is needed for a particular call...plus, how much time is being taken up by all of the "injuries" that players are faking? As far as Sepp Blatter's previous argument that replay technology isn't available to grassroot leagues...well, tell that to all the other sports who have embraced replays. And I am not just talking about American sports...cricket, rugby, and tennis are all international sports who have replay so what is soccer's excuse? Quite honestly, I think that previous objections to replay were rooted in anti-American sentiment since 15 years ago it was mainly American sports that used the tech but now days it is just idiotic not to have replay.
6. OFF-SIDES RULE: This one is my pet peeve. Why in the world is off-sides based on where the DEFENSE is? Why if the defense falls down or is stupid should the offense be affected? Plus, the "moving" off-sides rule makes it very difficult to correctly enforce. The referee needs to be looking at who is kicking the ball and at the same time, where the person(s) he is kicking to is located AT THE TIME THE BALL IS KICKED. In fact, the USA lost two goals in the first three games based on wrong off-sides calls. Solution: Use the approach used in ice hockey. Add two lines and enforce passes crossing two lines. Forget what the defense is doing, just don't allow two line passes.
I agree with you that the offside rule is arcane and results in more confusion but if you have ice hockey's system then I guarantee a lot of teams would just "park the bus" in front of goal and scoring would be even less then what it is now. With the current system, teams are encouraged not to drop too far back since the last defender determines the offside line...I think that more technology should be developed to help with offsides rather then drastically changing the rule.
OK, for my last 2 cents: most Americans find soccer boring not because of the rules or the scoring but because they have no context for the games they actually watch. We didn't grow up watching Everton vs. Liverpool, we don't know who George Best or Zico is, we don't care about the Kop or San Siro...we have a rich history in all of our major sports but never bothered with building one in soccer. The promotion of the World Cup as an event and the higher ratings show that Americans are slowly getting more accustomed to soccer and, while the sport will be a niche sport for decades to come, I think we are to a point where saying that "Americans find soccer boring" isn't even really fair to say anymore. I know plenty of people who love watching soccer here in Atlanta...they just hate watching MLS and Mexican League soccer.
so as not to hijack another thread, just a few comments on why we (americans) find that soccer is generally a boring game to watch.. 1. lack of scoring: american football adjusts the rules periodically so that each team averages around 3 touchdowns per game.
basketball added the three-point line to encourage more scoring.
even traditional baseball has tweaked the rules to encourage more scoring.
Do not know why it double posted, sorry.
we all know how hard it is, usually, for those rasied in the truth to readjust "outside in the world" once they leave ... so not to undermine them (esp.
for those who came in later in life - regardless of how many times from the podium you were instructed not to "leave the love you had at first" many of you are here because you found out the "truth about the truth" whether it was the people or doctrine or combination ... and were willing to open your mind, realize the "truth about the truth" and leave.
not to undermine all those years and mind numbing propaganda you endured in the jw's, but i have always felt: .
So how can I view the world differently or better by not being indoctrinated as a witness? would I instead just be indoctrinated to accept the reality?
You are making the mistake that many parents who were raised in strict religious situations (not just JW but many other religions) make: you are trying too hard to push your spiritual teachings on a child before they are able to properly judge for themselves whether or not they want to accept those teachings. You can teach your children good values and I even agree that you can teach them Christian values without having them "indoctrinated as a witness"; from being raised as a witness, I remember being only a child and yet having the weight of world issues & my allegiance to prophecies & doctrines questioned and that is unfair to a child. There can be a balance between the full court press of how the Witnesses raise children and spiritual nihilism but you have to be willing to find it rather then go back to a way of parenting you admittedly find extremely flawed...
Also, you seem to be showing the JW viewpoint that if you don't specifically raise your children as JWs then nothing else will prevent them from developing a moral background...ever think that maybe you can raise your children in a spiritual environment that encourages them to look at many religions and let them decide for themselves what to believe? I'm not saying that you shouldn't raise your children in whatever religion you choose (it is your choice) but to have them raised in a JW environment and get the results you want means that you can't halfheartedly go to meetings and tell them "hey, forget all the doctrines they teach about Armeggeddon, Paradise, 144,000, etc. and just focus on the parts about being good" because that will just confuse them even more.
