GarthP2000

Conservapedia Compare that, and Wikipedia, and notice that you can challenge, and even edit many Wikipedia pages, you cannot do the same to Conservapedia. At all. Go to Conservapedia. Go to _any_ page there. Click on the 'View Source' tab at the top of the page. On every page it tells you that you cannot edit that page due to one reason or another, usually because you have to be one of their administrators or 'users' (which gives NO info on how to become one.) Whereas on Wikipedia, many pages are editable. And they are a _lot_ more open to be challenged because of the reasons I mentioned earlier, reasons that do not exist on Conservapedia. And here is what Wikipedia has to say re: Conservapedia. And I can see their point. Hell, Conservapedia is a LOT like TWI in this respect. ... Accept what they have to say based on their authority, ... period! <_<

Ooooo ooo oooo I got one. I got one! Back in early 1985, TWI leadership wanted each and every limp--err limb leader to get a IBM PCjr (remember those? Take a look at the pic below). And it was no more than a month or two after that IBM discontinued that model, and thus cutting off any further support and software. Uhhh DUH! Ya think that maybe Gawd woulda let them know this ahead of time? Pic of PCjr:

... and that's why there is always a way of challenging the content of the articles, the balance and the motivation behind them, the validity of their sources, and/or the completeness of them. Now, ... how many other authoritative encyclopedic sources out there offer that kind of openness, hmmmm? See, it's one thing for a source that needs more work on its articles that gives you that opportunity to openly challenge what they have to say. It's quite another when said source does _not_ give you that opportunity. (Oohhh, for example Conservapedia, a wiki based site that allows for _no_ editing or challenging of their articles, ... at all!) And which ones would you wind up trusting because of this?

You do _not_ have to disable one browser to run another. You _do_ have to choose which browser is the default browser that runs automatically when you click on a website link in your email app, or any other app.

WG, Not to sweat. I wasn't aiming anything at you, and I know _you_ were referring to Jell-O. My retort was something that I wish was said in VPW's direction, accompanied with the obligatory one-finger salute (and I ain't talking about the pinky either.) RR, Nahhh! As tempting as it really is, ... I like my account here. Plus I imagine that Paw wants to keep his blood pressure down for health reasons. :P

I am s-o-o-o tempted to come up with a scathing zinger to that kind of mindless prattle, .... but Paw would ban me for good!

??? Where did this come from? :unsure: "I never did anything I didn't want to hear." ... O-k-a-y, .... whatever. (more drivel) Really? ... Ya know, whenever I hear someone say something along the lines of "So you think you're always right, doncha!?" or "So you think you're better than me!" or similar statements, it usually reminds me of how a little kid would blurt out "So you think that you're daddy is better than mine!!" before taking all of his toys in a huff and heading home. So I don't give those kind of statements any more mind. (further drivel follows) Typical. Hit and run drive-by poster. ... Oh well, hasta la vista to you too.

Oh you can wash it alright. (Done so many times when I was shampooing. ... Wound up losing a lot of my hair over the years tho. :blink: ) It's just a b*tch to dry. --- But in all seriousness, at the risk of being portrayed as an ((drum roll)) e-v-i-l Way ((GASP)) *apologist* (woman screams in the background) ... (I _did_ say 'in all seriousness', didn't I? ;) ) From my, admittedly amateur, observations/reading/thinking from an independent stance, the concept of 'mind control' (at least of the 'Manchurian Candidate' variety) isn't as widespread as many people would like to think. And without trying to dig out all of my posts on which I pontificate/pi** some people off on the matter, I'll condense what I've found into the following points: 1) Has mind control been actually medically, professionally, and clinically defined/diagnosed? From what I've seen, it has been a 'hit and miss' approach, ... _at best_. 2) Has mind control theories been (note the following-->) peer review level scientifically scrutinized, and that by _independent_ psychological professionals in that field. To the point where they prove said mind control theories? From what I've seen, that point hasn't been anywhere *near* reached. 3) How _selective_ has the mind control theory been applied to one group (you know, the 'cults'?) and not to others (the more mainstream perhaps?) even when dealing with the same 'cultic behavior'? 4) Some items on a few lists (like Lifton's) I have problems with. Examples as: a) terms like 'love bombing', where affections are referred to as a tool in the application of 'mind control'. Hhmmmm, s-o-o, how is that distinctive from other applications of the same kind of affection, and where _that_ isn't a form of 'mind control'? b) or how about this little jewel? "Loading the terminology". Where 'cults' take words like 'available', believing', 'renew your minds', and the like, and where somehow the term is redefined to mean something different, or is used a different way, and the process of 'mind control' continues because of it. Do tell? Well, first off, the English language is the most ambiguous language on the face of the planet. It is, almost by its very nature -- re-definable. Also, you know why I find 'loading the terminology' so damn ironic? Because the same anti-cult activists who decry that vile practice, ... well, they practice it themselves. Sure they do. --- The term 'cult' itself. Yes, the way they use the term cult IS a 'loading of the terminology'. How? Before the late 60's-early 70's, the term 'cult' was _neutral_ in meaning and usage. "Cult - (n) People who are followers of an idea, person, or thing." Notice how _neutral_ that is. Nowadays when people talk about cults (with the exception of its celebrity usage; "Rocky Horror Picture show's cult fans" for example), they use a term that has been twisted, changed, ... loaded, I daresay, from its original meaning. ... Like I said, ironic. <_< How about that for a critic's synopsis regarding the 'brainwashing' issue, hmmmm?

Doesn't it say in the will?

A tad , but perhaps the Republican Party can learn some tips from TWI as to how they manage such a hemorrhaging of their numbers and money. We now return to our regularly scheduled topic.

You mean there has been a *massive* exodus recently? .... .... of all *3* people?? :blink:

Man, oh man, Linda! Talk about a trip down History Channel lane. :blink: Hey! If it's in good condition, you just might be able to sell it and make quite a bit o' $$$ for it. Who knows. Now if only you could come across one of Hitler's paintings he did when he was a youth, hmmm? $$CHAA-CHIINGG$$ :B)

The snake.

The guy is funny as hell, but why is it when I visit his other videos, they all seem to have been recorded on cell phones? :blink: I mean, what is it with this guy? Can't afford a good production crew?

Aww heck. I was thinking that the guy in the red hair and mustache was Ron Howard. :B)

And even if there verse(s) in the Bible that meant that, ... what real difference should that make? Think about it. ;)

Well apparently Zix, we _still_ haven't read the whole thing yet. ;) And good to see ya dude. Grif says 'meooww' = "Hiya!"

It was a kind of facetious response to this: "Ignore religion, and you can enjoy your short existence. Buy into religion, and you wast precious time. . ." Ie., on the one hand, you ignore religion and you you have a short existence (altho' enjoyed) to show for it, and take religion, and you 'waste precious time'. Ie., a choice that seems to be a dead end either way you go from what it portrays. Clear as mud?

... now if *that* isn't one helluva K-Mart Blue Light Special, I don't know what is!

Here's a clue that puts a BIG question above the credibility of these "truths 'bout hell": Creflo Dollar Yup, that's who that preacher is. The man who preaches the Prosperity Gospel of '$$ Money Loves My Pocket $$'. <_< The man that teaches that he, as a preacher, is ordained by Gawd-a to get rich off of your tithes and offerings. ... And I'd be willing that he pushes that "truth 'bout hell" on those who are reluctant to give their tithes and offerings that go straight into his pocket. The thing I can't handle are these song-and-dance con artists who put people in fear in order to get money in their pockets. That would be _my_ version of hell.

(Homer Simpson mode on) B-E-E-E-E-R-R-R-R!! ... mmmmmmmmMMMMMMMmmmmmmm

WG, I don't know if you noticed, but there was a :B) after my remark. ;) :B) Further elaborating, the remark "Perhaps Grande High Poo-bah would be a more appropo title?" was a tongue-in-cheek response to what you said re: "I'm sorry if I have misled you by the use of the term "CEO."" I meant no offense nor challenge to anything else you said in my remark, and I apologize of it came across that way. Peace?

Well, if it was indeed the Lord who killed Ananias and Sapphira, you are right. Peter wasn't the bully here. God was. <_< And all the arguments in defense of this incident becomes moot.

Perhaps Grande High Poo-bah would be a more appropo title? ((ducks)) :B)

Just curious. Why does Juedes stop there and not give the archive address? :unsure: