Unofficial: Conservatives Have Secured A Separate Meeting Hall

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Amos

"Worldly amusements" is a deliberately ambiguous term.

"TV" is not.

Says you. I really don't know if I have "TV" myself. I certainly have the capability to recieve it on the TV's we use for video, on my computers, on my cell phone... It's ambiguous to me ...

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by Amos

I think we agree.

I think it is dumb to do the AS and then accept the cover letters though.

That makes the whole thing meaningless, and just pushed men out for nothing.

Hence all the wailing that the wheels are coming off the wagon.

Either do it, or don't, but the double standard just makes the whole thing a farce.

It would be a tremendous relief if the org's troubles were limited in their extent to qualify for the definition of "farce." The org has deeper troubles, chief among them an ineptitude for dealing with problems. There is a sliver of truth that serves as the basis for the railings against conservatism, modesty standards, various forms of legalism, and other UC peculiarities. The broad-brush generalizations tend to stigmatize and polarize the people and the issues, but the root problems do exist in various forms, strengths, and locations. People can't help but put the hateful face they know with the words of any person who has a similar point of view. The negative effects on people's lives have been vivid and valid.

Perhaps it is a telling thing about TV that so few people, even HG-filled preachers, are willing to forego it?

We're hooked. Gimme another hit, baby.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by tommythumb

And didn't Nathaniel Urshan allow this in the months immediately following the passage of the AS?

Originally Posted by Felicity

Yes, thankfully.

We didn't exit until '97.

[Amos]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Says you. I really don't know if I have "TV" myself. I certainly have the capability to recieve it on the TV's we use for video, on my computers, on my cell phone... It's ambiguous to me ...

I think we all know what the original intent was.

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Says you. I really don't know if I have "TV" myself. I certainly have the capability to recieve it on the TV's we use for video, on my computers, on my cell phone... It's ambiguous to me ...

They actually went as far as to say any device with the capability to receive over the air or cable broadcasts should be altered in such a way that they can no longer receive. Even this is open to debate... does that mean opening the box and snipping the wires to the tuner or simply not plugging an antenna or other broadcast source into the back of the unit. Most VCR's and some DVD-R's have built-in tuners as well...

[Amos]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Hence all the wailing that the wheels are coming off the wagon.



It would be a tremendous relief if the org's troubles were limited in their extent to qualify for the definition of "farce." The org has deeper troubles, chief among them an ineptitude for dealing with problems. There is a sliver of truth that serves as the basis for the railings against conservatism, modesty standards, various forms of legalism, and other UC peculiarities. The broad-brush generalizations tend to stigmatize and polarize the people and the issues, but the root problems do exist in various forms, strengths, and locations. People can't help but put the hateful face they know with the words of any person who has a similar point of view. The negative effects on people's lives have been vivid and valid.

Perhaps it is a telling thing about TV that so few people, even HG-filled preachers, are willing to forego it?

We're hooked. Gimme another hit, baby.

I value your input. You seem to be a sharp fellow.

But I am not entirely sure exactly what you mean by this post.

Were you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Could you expound a little?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Amos

I think we all know what the original intent was.

Do we? Did the original intent not require disabling or altering a TV reception device?? Did you? Did the original intent allow for circumventing technology that allows me to watch FOX, 60 Minutes or ABC NOW on my computer?

[Kansas Preacher]

Originally Posted by Enigmatically Ambiguous

There is a rumor circulating that certain conservative leaders have secured a separate meeting hall at Tampa should the tv resolution pass. The story is they will walk out of the business meeting en masse and will proceed to this alternate meeting hall where they will organize and conduct their own business complete with election of officials.

Can anybody verify this?

Originally Posted by H2H

Well, KP is a poster here - ask him yourself.

If it is true, I am disappointed. I was not invited.

Of course, according to Elder Epley, neither was God. Therefore, I must be in good company.

It is my understanding that those who get out will most likely remain independent. I don't think any meeting halls have been rented, and no elections are scheduled -- other than what has been done officially by the UPCI.

Sorry to break up your party.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Sheltiedad

The "masses" have television but do not have TIVO, DVR's or Internet... everyone is not fortunate enough to have these things... however, I have sat in a 2 room shack in a small village in India and watched television, while sitting in a room with only plastic furniture. The only other furniture was a small bed in the other room that a family of 4 slept in together.

Remember that the lifestyle we enjoy in the US is not typical of the rest of the world and there are a lot more of them than of us.

Sure, get an internet broadcast if it makes you feel better, you might reach some spoiled kid down the street one day... but who is going to reach those who cannot afford to go into a city and login to the internet and pay by the minute?

Greta post! Noticed no one wanted to tackle your reasonable points SD!

[Theresa]

I say:

Let's start a better rumor.