in 1897, j.j. thomson discovered the electron.
this was the first constituent part of the atom which, for 2,000 years, was thought to be indivisible.
today, we know of 18 elemental particles following the recent discovery of the higgs boson, the so-called god particle.. back in 1897, most people believed in god because there weren't even any theories as to how the universe came into being.
Humans and our knowledge base to-date are infinitesimally small in the universe. Whether humans will ever be able to see or understand things outside our universe and whether there is some extrauniverse being that controls our universe is yet to be seen.
At our current state of knowledge attempting to speak about whether there is such an influence is like two bacteria in our bowels debating whether their world is it or if maybe there is something beyond.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
... to divert attention...
My comment was toward another participant regarding your posting activity, which makes what I said on-point rather than off-point.
Regarding primary subject matter I've raised in this discussion, there's nothing to divert attention away from. What I wrote then remains the case, and despite your embarrassing responses.
Candance's purpose in filing her lawsuit was to affect positive change in an institutional policy regarding allegation of child victimization. She filed and persisted in this lawsuit because it was a legitimate and reachable tool at her disposal, with substantial help from an understanding lawyer. She has not spent any more time on Kendrick (her victimizer) than was necessary to help a court appointed jury make a finding about whether he victimized her, something her and her lawyer met with success. It is not mere opinion that Kendrick sexually battered Candace. It's a question that has been met with an answer by a duly seated court appointed jury. Apparently you don't like this. Too bad. It's done.
very weird article, you can read it here if you can tolerate such nonsense:.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20150915/melita-jaracz-blessing-in-life/.
basically teddy was a super, duper spiritual giant who went undercover behind the iron curtain, sorta james bond like.
A few years back I spoke with a Bethelite who was readying to leave Bethel along with his wife. He had been at Bethel for decades and was rather high up the ladder.
As he and I talked I recalled him as a teenager and young adult and spoke about his many academic and personal accomplishments, and a specific award he had earned when he was 17 years old. He replied saying, "That was the last productive thing I have done with my life so far."
This man left Bethel for "family reasons". He came home with high recommendations from Bethel. He and his wife opted to pioneer for two years afterward. He would never accept appointment as an elder, though several attempts were made. Then he did the fade.
His wife was and remains very distraught over this. But I know this man. He has brains, and everything was finally sinking in for him. His wife will probably never wake up to what's going on inside Watchtower. But he has, and it's really taken a toll on him, which is not surprising news around here.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
He is just looking to...
Take a look at the graph on this page. It screams. Just what I'll keep to myself.
i guess the branch isn't happy with the amount being sent each month since we are way lower than our loan amount.
we now have to another financial survey to see the max amount that can be given.
it is "encouraged" for all to be in attendance and give much forethought and consideration to the amount you can donate each month.
Several years ago I was shown a note allegedly placed in a KH contribution box declaring the person (anonymous) had decided to up their donation but they had also decided to give their donation directly to orphans and widows in need because they'd become confused about just where all their money was going and for what. The note was typed but had a handwritten PS saying they had made a cash donation to support basic local needs like utilities.
The elder who showed me this document commented to me saying "I wish we'd get a lot more of these. It would make it a lot easier, and more powerful, to pass the message upstream."
as i understand it ,a christian minister of god is someone who goes to school gets the opportunity to further their education at a higher level ,then studies greek hebrew , latin , and what is available in ancient manuscripts , and demonstrates they have a comprehension of all these issues.....and of course they would need to get a pass on these subjects.. i think this would be the minimum standard required in the mainstream christian churches ,greek orthodox , catholic, all branches ,church of england ,and most of the mainstream protestant religions.
then we come to jehovah `s witnesses , none of the above applies to them , all they have is , they have been baptized by water immersion into their religion with none of the above qualifications.. and this includes minors , some as young as ten , possibly even younger in some situations who are classed as ministers of god simply by their baptism by water immersion.. they are also on record as saying higher education is a waste of time.why ?
because the end is just around the corner , a phrase that has been repeated and repeated since the year 1914 till now.. what young child could possibly hold their own with a discussion in theology or even comprehend the complexities of christianity with their counterparts.?.
I thought a Christian minster was a person or persons who stood or sat idly sipping coffee, eating donuts and talking with their equally unoccupied partners while within sight of a cart loaded with propaganda without even bothering to engage browsers. Did I miss something?
i guess the branch isn't happy with the amount being sent each month since we are way lower than our loan amount.
we now have to another financial survey to see the max amount that can be given.
it is "encouraged" for all to be in attendance and give much forethought and consideration to the amount you can donate each month.
Now that JW congregations have been compelled to give up their financial cushions to Watchtower, and now that JWs see their Governing Body members begging for money on worldwide broadcasts, I expect to observe a notable increase in the frequency and aggressiveness of local begging by Watchtower appointed officials, otherwise known as elders etc.
We'll see how the flock of sheople respond when it begins dawning on a majority that, like most of the rest of the world, it's about the money (and power and influence that goes along with money in Watchtower's case).
Watchtower's Governing Body has given and continues to give a lesson in how to beg for money.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
Don't feed the troll.
Trolls and engaging trolls can be useful... sometimes.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
The word guilty is not found in the Civil Jury's verdict. And neither did the verdict say that he was found guilty by the jury. The terms guilt and guilty (you answered yes) are terms that you have selected to describe Civil Court findings but they are not used in any legal way in the Civil Court documents to apply to its findings.
I use words to communicate. Saying Kendrick sexually battered Candace Conti and saying Kendrick is guilty of sexually battering Candace Conti are both communicating the same thing: Kendrick did something very, very bad to Candace Conti. When a jury makes this finding based on evidence (documents and testimony) then it is not mere opinion; it is a judicial finding.
Neither was the accused cross examined. And the jury was able to decide against the accused defendant without his participation, imagine that..
My recollection is that had Kendrick wanted to object to aspersions being caste upon his character he could have attended the trial and had his say.
And a Civil Court can find a person liable by default, without a trial!
But that didn't happen in the Candance lawsuit. There was a trial. Testimony and documents were entered and heard as evidence. The court appointed jury found Kendrick had victimized Candace.
And that is why a civil Court verdict does not carry much weight in deciding whether the person actually did it. It is not about that. That is what Criminal Court is about. Civil is about the money. Besides this, as I have posted previously, Appellate already found error in the Jury's findings. It challenges the Jury's judgment in its findings.
This has already been addressed. In a jury trial despite black-letter law stipulating a higher standard of proof, when material facts are left for a jury to decide upon whether a defendant is found guilty is based on the belief of the sitting jury. Lots of innocent people have been found guilty by criminal courts and lots of guilty people have been found not-guilty by criminal courts. Both civil and criminal courts have limitations, but each also has their benefits. In this case Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child molestation. The civil courts system was arguably better suited to that end, and she made use of it. That seems to really rub you wrong. I don't know why. But that's how it seems.
In the meantime you've been embarrassing yourself throughout this discussion by pretending Kendrick might not be a child predator. A court appointed jury found the man guilty of sexual battery of a child.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/maincasescreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2109889&doc_no=s226656&search=party&start=1&query_partylastnameororg=watchtower bible and tract.
started 5/27/2015.
In referring to a Civil verdict, I think, that using the term guilty is a confusing misuse of the word that should only be used to apply to a criminal charge.
Of course you feel that way. Because it conflicts with what you want readers to think. You've been parsing words and threading needles through this whole discussion, the whole time avoiding the fact that a jury found Kendrick perpetrated sexual battery on Candace.
That is a finding of guilt in everyone's book (including Websters!!!) except for yours apparently.
Candace wanted to compel Watchtower to improve its policy regarding allegations of child abuse. She used resources at her disposal for that purpose. She did it. Get use to it. It is not imagination or simple opinion of readers that Kendrick victimized Candace. A sitting jury decided based on evidence (documents and testimony) that HE DID IT.
