seattleniceguy

Joined

• started 121 topics
• posted 2,050 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by seattleniceguy

• 
  47

  What kind of Apostate are you?

  by diamondblue1974 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've been on this site now for a little while and think its brilliant and its been a tonic in getting things straight and for gathering research.

  (thanks simon & ang).

  in fact its difficult to get work done during the day because of reading posts on here.. a couple of months ago if someone wouldve asked me whether i was apostate i would have flatly refused partly because the indoctrination still has its effect even after a decade and the negative connotation attached to the word 'apostate' is still at the back of my mind.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Yowza, Dragonlady! I gotta get me down to Florida!
• 
  26

  How do you refer to the generic singular third-person?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  english really has no satisfying mechanism to do this.

  i'm talking about sentences in which you're speaking of a hypothetical person and you must identify him with a pronoun.

  there are several options available, all equally unsatisfying:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  LOL @ Dave....

  Elsewhere,

  One of my favorite quotes is: "The dictionary does not define a language, on the contrary, a language defines the dictionary."

  I've heard same thing expressed as, "The dictionary plays the role of a historian, not a legislator."

  Scully, Leolaia, GentlyFeral re: they,

  So it sounds like this will be the winner going forward. I was going to complain about the verbs not agreeing, like in the sentence,

  The publisher confessed that they read [not "s/he reads"] JWD everyday.

  But I suppose that singular "you" has the same idiosyncrasy and yet has been established as correct English. I guess it seems reasonable that the same thing will happen with "they."

  Interesting.

  SNG
• 
  26

  How do you refer to the generic singular third-person?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  english really has no satisfying mechanism to do this.

  i'm talking about sentences in which you're speaking of a hypothetical person and you must identify him with a pronoun.

  there are several options available, all equally unsatisfying:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  English really has no satisfying mechanism to do this. I'm talking about sentences in which you're speaking of a hypothetical person and you must identify him with a pronoun. See, right there. There are several options available, all equally unsatisfying:

  You can use the third-person plural:

  When I notice a new poster who has de-lurked, I heartily congratulate them for their courage.

  I've never been fond of this because half the sentence treats the person like a plural and half treats them (correctly) as a singlular.

  You could use the masculine third-person, as is the standard in traditional English:

  The JW apologist must certainly be aware that he is defying orders from the WTS by posting here.

  This, however, is beginning to sound a little backward in the days of sexual enlightenment.

  You could use the expressions "he or she," "him or her", and "his or her":

  The JW apologist must take care that when he or she expresses his or her opinions, he or she does not accidentally expose too much information about him- or herself.

  The problems with this appoach are manifest.

  You could use the feminine third-person:

  A new poster on JWD should feel free to express herself in any way that suits her.

  But simply swapping genders from the traditional English use doesn't actually solve the problem.

  You could take turns using male and female pronouns:

  A new poster on JWD should feel free to express herself in any way that suits her. An established poster may find that he spends considerable time writing about grammar.

  This is the approach I take when writing pieces in which I have multiple generic people who exist for paragraphs at a time. However, in contexts where you have only a single generic person, it is not logical to swap her gender. And even with multiple generic people, sometimes such use is confusing.

  I suppose there are a few other potential solutions, such as using "it," but I don't think many people use them. I wonder what you feel is the most natural. What techniques do you prefer?

  SNG

  P.S. And is there a more correct name for what I'm talking about than "generic singular third-person"?
• 
  25

  Are JW apologists really that bad?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in recent weeks, we've had a few jw apologists or sympathizers that have created a bit of a stir around these parts.

  some of their posts have been inconsiderate of the feelings of others, causing no small amount of understandable outrage on several threads.

  on other threads, some of them have frequently failed to even read the posts to which they are responding, causing them to make comments that are unrelated to the discussion at hand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey IP,

  Sorry about that. I couldn't tell if you were just punning or were actually unfamiliar with the word.

  SNG
• 
  55

  You know you're NOT a JW anymore when...(add some)

  by Flindersgirl in

  1. social
  2. humour

  you don't automatically wake up with a headache on sunday morning.... you no longer go around (while in field service) mentally deciding what home you'll "have" after armaggedon.... every item of clothing you buy as a woman is not first assessed for its modesty value.... you no longer worry about the 144,000 watching you have sex...:).

  when on holiday you don't have to find the nearest kingdom hall asap (remember brother and sisters you are not on holiday from jehovah!!!).

  being able to laugh about having a numb ass at the assemblies from sitting and the hilarity in having to tell people that you found the meeting "uplifting" when really you were fighting sleep the whole time.... you no longer have to avoid entire sections of music stores in order to make sure you don't pick up and "demonistic" vibes from backmasked cd's.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Seeing facial hair on a person no longer makes you doubt their integrity.

  You stop being afraid your co-workers might ask you over for dinner.

  You realize that one week contains an absolutely enormous amount of time!

  Flindersgirl, welcome to the board! Nice first thread! Looking forward to seeing you around.

  SNG
• 
  25

  Are JW apologists really that bad?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in recent weeks, we've had a few jw apologists or sympathizers that have created a bit of a stir around these parts.

  some of their posts have been inconsiderate of the feelings of others, causing no small amount of understandable outrage on several threads.

  on other threads, some of them have frequently failed to even read the posts to which they are responding, causing them to make comments that are unrelated to the discussion at hand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Thanks to everyone for the great response, everyone! Just to respond to a few points....

  rebel8,

  I know, when I was a dub, I questioned things and defended "my" beliefs when challenged...all the while actually thinking my "opponents" made some very good points. I think all of them actually helped play a role in me leaving, even if the effect wasn't immediate.

  I agree totally. I remember, one of the last stages for me came when I perceived myself as an attorney, defending my client's position to the best of my ability, while feeling somehow vaguely detached from it personally. I remember answering questions with, "We believe such-and-such," but not feeling that it was a very strong position. But since "we" believed it, I defended it.

  Dave,

  Secondly, would you agree that we see a very narrow demographic of JW's coming on here?

  Yeah, I think you're right. It does seem clear that we're not getting a straight-across slice of the KH. It would be difficult to define the demographics exactly, though.

  Actually, that makes me wonder....I bet there are Witness lurkers who identify with the apologists and root for them, but I bet there are others that feel embarassed by them but watch anyway. Hmm.

  IP_SEC,

  Actually, apologist doesn't mean a person who apologizes. It means "a person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution." (dictionary.com)

  slimboyfat,

  I've been reading your posts with considerable interest lately. Still trying to figure out where you're coming from....You ought to write more about yourself sometime (obviously without divulging compromising information). By the way, I totally agreed with your argumentation on the "Is there any proof of Bethel monitors" thread, but I wasn't able to post.

  SNG
• 
  78

  and its 'goodbye from him'

  by dostprefer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've taken a leaf from holly's book to thank your for having me on the forum - thirteen interesting days but came to realise one cannot achieve much speaking from behind a screen.

  people do not know who you really are, nor do you they.

  i read many of holly's posts but few others.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Wow, I was really hoping dost would read my new thread. I started it mostly with him in mind... :-)
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86465/1.ashx

  C'mon, dost, I can see you through the monitor. Don't act like you're not reading this. Click the link. That's right, move the mouse over...good...good....Now click!

  SNG
• 
  25

  Are JW apologists really that bad?

  by seattleniceguy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in recent weeks, we've had a few jw apologists or sympathizers that have created a bit of a stir around these parts.

  some of their posts have been inconsiderate of the feelings of others, causing no small amount of understandable outrage on several threads.

  on other threads, some of them have frequently failed to even read the posts to which they are responding, causing them to make comments that are unrelated to the discussion at hand.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  In recent weeks, we've had a few JW apologists or sympathizers that have created a bit of a stir around these parts. Some of their posts have been inconsiderate of the feelings of others, causing no small amount of understandable outrage on several threads. On other threads, some of them have frequently failed to even read the posts to which they are responding, causing them to make comments that are unrelated to the discussion at hand. For this, the word "troll" has been thrown around a lot.

  It is regretful that some have been hurt by a cold-hearted apologist, and I don't mean to minimize that. However, on the whole, I feel that the presence of JW apologists here is a good thing, even if their manners leave something to be desired. There are several reasons for this.

  A minor benefit is that the apologist him- or herself may benefit over time from exposure to the array of ideas offered here. As someone pointed out recently, you cannot "un-learn" something. It may take time, but cognitive dissonance will eventually begin working.

  However, the major benefit to the presence of the apologist is that he or she unwittingly provides the perfect contrast of JW-think to normal, rational thought. This is especially true when the apologist offers lines that are clearly taken directly from WT literature, because they echo what countless lurkers are thinking automatically as their programmed responses kick in. When an apologist is rude, or intentionally misses the point of someone's thoughtful post, or changes the subject instead of answering a difficult question, countless lurkers observe this. The apologist becomes the best anti-Witness we could ask for.

  Additionally, the presence of the apologist itself is a powerful statement for JW lurkers, since it is in defiance of direct orders from Brooklyn. Clearly, in spite of the apologist's claims to the contrary, he or she does not fully believe what he or she preaches.

  Therefore, I am happy to see the apologists on the board. In their own strange way, they help show lurkers what the WTS is all about.

  Funny sort of world, isn't it? What do you think?

  SNG
• 
  36

  A vengeful phallus

  by IP_SEC in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so i?m thinking of going out to a lonely place once a month or so to smoke a tobacco product in rebellion against the wts.

  (hey gimme a break here, i cant go out on a fornicatin spree).

  cigarettes aren?t really my style, so i?m thinking a cigar.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  Hey IP,

  A couple friends of mine and I have the custom of cigars and brandy on our respective anniversaries of mental liberation from the Borg. I've only smoked twice so far, and both times it was a Playboy, about a $15 cigar, if I recall correctly. I really can't comment on its quality, since I have nothing to compare to, and since I'm definitely not a smoker. But there is something irresistably defiant about sitting out on the deck smoking a big stogie. :-)

  Good luck!

  Carmel,

  Oh, c'mon. Nothing is going to happen to you if you smoke a cigar once a year. Take it up everyday, and maybe you've got a problem. Everything in moderation, no?

  SNG
• 
  11

  When the boot is on the other foot.

  by Peppermint in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when the boot is on the other foot.

  .

  how gracious jw?s are when they get a taste of their own medicine.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  seattleniceguy

  The funny thing is, most of the Witnesses probably thought the guy was an Apostate(tm). Sheesh.

  SNG