markomalley

So, you're saying he's a drive-by troll?

RumRunner, Gee, thanks! I would have never known that about Google. Imagine that! Google is a search engine. ((groans and then deeply sighs)) (Note to self: caution when employing the dry sense of humor when opening a new topic. Some folks might not be able get it unless a pretty picture is drawn for them))

Not EGGLPANT. Arugula and eggplant. Eggplant by itself would be tasteless. The chicory taste from the Arugula sets it off... Geez, fundamentalists. They need to have faith to let their tastebuds grow in knowledge and not be so constrained....

Oh, and by the way, let me EMPHASIZE that I don't LIKE pineapple on pizza. My preferences are: - White pizza with lots of garlic - Arugola and eggplant - Diavola - Artichoke - Quattro Formaggi But my wife got addicted to the Pizza Hawaii while we lived in Italy. So, if I can have my eggplant pizza, who am I to say that she isn't eating pizza when she has a Hawaii pizza...

Now just hang on young lady. You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with a pizzaria in Italy. I'd think a pizzaria in Italy would know what pizza is, and isn't. After all, pizza is, after all, Italian food. Or so I thought...

Extract from the menu from Ristorante Tosca, Roma (http://www.toscaroma.it/ilmenu.html) Pizzeria Pizza Marinara 4,30 (fresh tomato sauce, garlic origano) Pizza Margherita 4,90 (fresh tomato sauce, mozzarella cheese) Pizza Napoli 4,90 (fresh tomato sauce, mozzarella, anchovies) Pizza Funghi 5,60 (mushrooms, fresh tomato sauce, mozzarella) Pizza Funghi Porcini 8,20 (porcini mushrooms, mozzarella) Pizza Funghi e Prosciutto 6,20 (mushrooms, cured parma ham) Pizza Prosciutto 6,20 (cured parma ham, fresh tomato sauce, mozzarella) Pizza Capricciosa 6,20 (ham, mushrooms, artichoke, eggs, mozzarella) Pizza Rughetta, Bresaola, Parmigiano 6,20 (arugula, dried beef, parmesan cheese) Pizza alla Burina 6,20 (sausage, mushrooms, eggs, mozzarella) Pizza con Patate 5,60 (patatoes, mozzarella) Pizza con Würstel 6,20 (wieners) Pizza Fiori di Zucca 6,20 (pumpkin blossoms, anchovies) Pizza Frutti di Mare 8,20 (seafood) Pizza Quattro Formaggi 6,20 (with 4 kind of cheeses) Pizza al Salmone e Rughetta 8,20 (salmon, arugula, mozzarella) Pizza Hawaii 6,20 (pineapple, ham, mozzarella) Pizza Lido 6,20 (tunna fish and onion) Pizza con Cipolla 5,60 (mozzarella and onion) Pizza Gorgonzola e Radicchio 6,20 (gorgonzola red lattuce) Pizza Gamberi e Rughetta 8,20 (scrimps and arugola) Pizza Bufala e Pachino 8,20 (bufala and pachino tomato) My personal favorite is the arugola pizza. I like pumpkin flowers, but just not on pizza. Ananas is a far better topping, imho.

It wouldn't mean too much to me one way or the other (having said that, I never was in the situation that so many posters were during their time in). Not like I'd plan on going back to TWI either way. But I would be VERY happy if they did a <u><b>FULL</b></u> disclosure to their people. That would certainly help take the leaders off of the ivory pedastal and put them in the position of feet washing. Which is where Christian leaders should be anyway. Then if the innies decided to follow their leaders, they would be able to do so from a position of understanding and conscious agreement, rather than from a position of idolatry and with their heads in ostrich position. Do I think that is likely to happen? I'm not holding my breath!

Google just launched a new service called "Google Trends" (A timely trend analysis, considering the news :) ) BTW, Baltimore is likely #1 on the list because Ft. Meade (NSA HQ) is considered to be in the Balto. metro area. Enjoy!

It's located in the Doctrine and Covenants 132 verses 17-63. The key word is "exaltation" -- which, according to the LDS Guide to the Scriptures, means: The highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial kingdom. Also, All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent. Now, from what I understand, a subsequent President (of the LDS) received revelation that changed the guidance on Polygamy. I understand that, in Official Declaration 1, it was to be held in abeyance. Maureen could provide better information on this, of course, but that's my understanding. From what I gather, the Fundamentalist LDS rejected this declaration and decided to stick with their scriptures (to include D&C 132, linked above).

On edit, why bother?

Very astute observations, Roy.

Oakspear's not an atheist.

Lorna, I'm really not out for "blood" now, per se. Actually, the theory I espouse treats the perpetrators with a considerable amount of mercy, as they would be victims of the theology they preached, as well as the commonly known and acknowledged victims, some of whom post here. Exposing the flaws of that theology, even tangentally (such as the threads that refer to connections between twi and liberty lobby, twi holocaust denial, etc.), help shed light where the darkness exists. As far as holding onto any personal animosity, yeah, I tend to agree with you. However, shedding light onto their works of darkness is very appropriate. Most people on this board know I'm Catholic. I have never denied that there have been some priests (approx 2-4% from 1960-1980) who were unable to control their urges toward pre-teen and young teen boys. I've looked into the causes of this and believe I understand what those causes were. I have also talked about the sins of Pope Paul IV and have seen the errors there (a major scandal that resulted in the establishment of much of Protestantism) It would be very possible for me to be a practicing Catholic and be in total ignorance of those scandals. There are many in the Church who would have preferred to have kept the clergy abuse scandal quiet and under wraps. But it was important to expose that dark chapter in Church history to the light. Because it showed how corrupt many in the Church hierarchy has gotten...and now there are many, like me, who watch the actions of that hierarchy very carefully. Now the analogy falls apart at this point: had the Church hierarchy actually followed established guidance, it's likely that the clergy abuse scandal would never have occurred...or would have been dwarfed in its scope compared to what happened. My belief is, in the case of TWI, many of the abuses can be traced back to the theology that was taught. But the critical point is this: bringing the light of the facts to the situation dispel the darkness. So exposing the abuses and the abusers, along with an analysis of the reasons for that abuse, is a good thing. Keeping it up is also a good thing, at least until such time as the structural changes needed to truly correct those problems has occurred. Personally, I think discussions of Armstrong's group, the JW's, or any other group are out of scope for this board, unless they relate back to how twi functioned. After all, this is an ex-TWI board. There are plenty of ex-JW boards out there, as well as ex-Armstrong boards, etc. I don't think that many of the posters here would be overly interested.

If they didn't change their fundamental theological basis (such as what Armstrong's WW Church of God did), an apology would not change my disagreement with them. The reason for this is because my theory is that all of the abuses stemmed from a fundamentally flawed theology, not that the abuses were an abberation of a fundamentally sound theology (such as the position held by a good portion of the posters here). When I stop posting on gsc, the reason will have nothing to do with what twi does one way or the other.

I, for one, think there should be a fatwa placed on the head of Dan Brown. (kidding) Seriously, there was a story a few days ago put out by the AP that said that the Vatican excommunicated four Chinese Catholic bishops without process. The actual statement is here. Bottom line: the news media got it wrong...a slight little detail (which is FAR too "inside baseball" to try bothering to explain here) that completely turned the accurate story on its head. I'd love to read the entire interview. Because the only quote given in the story that says something about "legal action" is here: Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Now, with respect to Sudo and the rest of you, I read that saying that he is advocating that Christians take some kind of action that is within the bounds of the law ("legal means" versus "illegal means") to show their displeasure at the film being produced. Sounds like an Reuters reporter who either got his panties in a jam or simply got it wrong when writing the headline. However, I'd repeat: I would love to see the whole transcript, so that I know what was actually said and the context in which it was said. Of course, it's far easier and more fun to bash the Church.

FWIW, there is a replay of a hearing on "Marsha's Law" right now on C-SPAN (11:00 AM Sunday, 5/7/2006)

We had a discussion about it a while back down in the Doctrinal forum.

I like that "complaint generator" program! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!! (y'all need to click on the link at the bottom of his post) I think that y'all got pnw'd!!!

I'm going to repeat what I said on another thread. I hope it doesn't offend you (it's not intended to do so): As long as you don't violate the site's rules, you should be able to post anything that you want. You should NEVER apologize for your thoughts or feelings...no matter what they are. If somebody doesn't like what you say, they can just blow it off or they can respond. As long as everybody acts like an adult, what ensues is then called a discussion...which can imply some disagreement from time to time. Possibly heated disagreement, which can still be handled in adult fashion and within the site's rules. Likemindedness is a good thing, but that likemindedness should come from an honest evaluation of the facts. "Forced" likemindedness brought on by the pressure to be "likeminded," "GSPC," or some other external force, is, IMHO, BS. Bottom line: I may not agree with what you say, but you've got the right to say it. So stand up! Of course, it's all IMHO and YMMV, FWIW Hopefully I don't get flamed for saying it this time. Sunnyfla: Nothing to apologize for, imho...

No, but, uh...thanks for asking.

Hopefull, Sorry to hear about all of that. My suggestion: if you want to check it out, go for it....Just not now, when you are feeling vulnerable. Make sure that you are in a mentally and emotionally stable condition and not grieving at all for hubby and/or job. Why? Because they will be able to feed on that...remember the old "love bomb" technique? It works, especially well, when you are lonely, feel weak, and in need of loving. You should be able to make up your own mind about where you go, how you worship, and so on. But it needs to be YOUR decision to do so...not a decision manipulated by emotions. Just something to consider...

I don't know what you think about the smoking bans put in place recently, but I think this example takes it a bit too far! A group of elderly and disabled cigarette lovers say Washington's smoking ban has become extremely hazardous to their health. Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne found them dodging traffic in wheelchairs and walkers. Folks are starting to get used to seeing "no-smoking" signs at bars, restaurants and public buildings. But, what happens when a nursing home bans smoking without making any accommodations for residents? Crossing the street in front of the Bremerton Health and Rehabilitation Center is not for the faint of heart, but that's exactly where we found the faint of heart traveling. No matter their disability, if residents like Donald Pike want to smoke, the center told them they have to leave the property. (snip) We videotaped disabled residents limping, shuffling, even creeping their wheelchairs into the road with no staff around to help. One man nearly fell. Another disabled smoker couldn't do anything but watch. “It's scary and especially if it rains, if we have a little snow, somebody could slip and fall and hurt themselves just to have a cigarette,” said one resident who was in a wheelchair. (snip) “I didn't believe it at first. I thought they were joking, but it was true. You're asking people who are already at risk for a fall, whose mobility is impaired, to go through the obstacle of walking hundreds of feet on unleveled terrain, over a curb, then across a real business street?” (snip) Resident David Olguin says that’s too far and too treacherous a journey for most. “They go pretty slow on that hill. The cars go pretty fast. One of them is going to get run over,” Olguin said. Administrators here were camera shy, but told us disabled residents didn't have to cross the street; it was just a suggestion. They admit, however, they want residents to quit smoking and won't permit the bad habit on nursing home property any longer. Our videotape proves that owners of the nursing home don't have any trouble asking residents, already in frail health, to stand in the rain and cold weather to light up. (remainder snipped) Source: KIRO TV They will work to improve your health even if it kills you!!!

How could I have forgotten?

I see the press release is from California... So, uh, what about the pollution created when the electricity is generated? Or the nuclear power plants? (I know there's SOME solar, SOME hydro-electric, SOME geothermal, SOME tidal, but not enough to take up the slack) Wasn't California "land of rolling brown outs" a while back?

Abigail, Absolutely NOT, nor have I ever suggested that. But at the same time, if someone posts about something they remember fondly about TWI, does that post have to be followed by a remark about how rotten it was? I think most of us here already know and agree that at least some portion of it was rotten, otherwise we'd still be going to "twig" every week, no? That's great. I agree completely with you on this point. (You will likely only see me post in the event of a doctrinal issue: an assertion of the dogmatic, unquestionable truth of a TWI doctrine)...but I wanted to make sure that this was the point you were driving at! And not a doctrinal version of PC...