An Armchair Scholar Answers Jehovah's Witnesses

Debating 101 - Even More Preliminaries

2008-03-28T07:38:00.003-05:00

What is a debate?

Any instance in which two (or more) parties disagree and the disagreeing parties try to persuade others of the accuracy of his/her position or dissuade others as to the accuracy of opposing positions.

Formal debates generally have predefined rules that each party agrees to. They are often timed (or limited by wordcount) and follow a preset format. For instance: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/great-debate.html

Informal debates are arguments with few (if any) pre-defined rules and are open to any and everyone. I have been in debates that have raged on for months. I have participated in debates in which teams argued the respective positions rather than individuals. Internet message boards, email listservs (ex. yahoo groups), sites like facebook - even comments on blogs - tend to produce informal debate.

What is an argument?

A proper argument has 3 parts:
*question/proposal
*supporting evidence
*conclusion

Please note: a question asked then answered with a conclusion that does not include supporting evidence is not an argument. An unsupported argument is an opinion. Everybody's entitled to their opinions. Even stupid, wrong-headed opinions, LOL. But an opinion does not trump a properly supported argument (or counter-argument). That simple.

If your opponent p'shaws your demands for supporting evidence by saying they are only stating their opinions, the best response is to state that you have provided evidence that proves his/her opinion is wrong.

What are logical fallacies?

Logical fallacies are errors in logic. They are flaws in critical thinking. Logical fallacies invalidate whatever conclusions are drawn from them so it's in your best interests to review and learn to identify them. Not just to point out the flaws in your opponents' arguments, but also to avoid comitting them in your own arguments.

The list I have bookmarked is http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html But it isn't comprehensive. Just do a search on "logical fallacies" and you'll find a treasure trove of sites explaining them.

How do you use logical fallacies in debates? The best way is to first identify the logical fallacy your opponent committed in his argument. Provide a definition of that logical fallacy (and a link to that definition and/or more information about the fallacy). Explicitly state that your opponent's argument is, therefore, invalid. You can also provide an extreme example of that fallacy to show in living color why that fallacy makes that argument invalid, but I usually don't bother unless my opponent responds by arguing that the fallacy isn't logically invalid at all.

How do you support an argument?

1. Appeal to Authority. Authorities are scholars and experts in the field. Appeals to authority are valid as long as authorities do not disagree to any significant degree. (Every field of study has some level of disagreement and minor disagreement is acceptable.) You may wish to note minor disagreement in your argument and briefly respond as a pre-emptive measure. If authorities disagree and that disagreement is significant, however, appeals to authority are logically fallacious for both you and your opponent. Note the disagreement in your argument and address the subject of disagreement directly yourself.

Cite multiple authorities. Provide quotes of at least one (the best quote), then list other experts who share that position to illustrate scholarly/scientific concensus. To hammer home strong support for your position among the experts, provide a short quote (less than a sentence) in " " in the body of your paragraph, which leads into a longer blockquote (with main ideas emphasized in bold). After the blockquote, present your list of authorities who share that position.

How much should you quote? Unless you are dealing in a forum in which ellipsises (cutting material by using ". . ." in a quote) aren't trusted, your quotes should be as brief as possible. Readers generally don't read long paragraphs, especially quotes from authorities. They read the first sentence, the last sentence, and skim the rest. If your quote is long, use emphasis (bold, color, etc) to draw reader attention to the main points.

If you use ellipses (". . .") to cut material from any quotation, be prepared to fill in those ellipses should your quote from authority be challenged. Filling those ellipses is your responsibility. Absolutely no whining if your ellipses are challenged. Your willingness to fill those ellipses increases your apparent credibility.

Any time one of your authorities is challenged, it is your responsibility to prove your authority is a scholar or expert in the field whose conclusions should be trusted. Cite academic credentials, published works, professional awards/accolades, peer review/respect, etc. Again, no whining. Again, your willingness to establish the veracity of your authority adds to your apparent credibility.

Use the best references available to you and your readers. An article in a scholarly/scientific journal will generally trump a basic dictionary entry, for instance, but that doesn't mean that basic dictionary entries aren't useful. If you're building a complex case, it's wise to begin with basic supports. If those basic supports are challenged, however, be prepared to thoroughly back them up with your big guns.

Generally speaking, big guns are widely recognized/respected books that are heavily footnoted and articles in scholarly/scientific journals. Don't use sources that are outdated unless doing so is in your best interests (ex. proving historicity of your argument). Don't use rare, esoteric references that would not be reasonably available to the average reader. If you must use such references (which I highly discourage), be prepared to quote surrounding context of any quote at great length or best case, scans of your quoted material.

Other theological supports from authority can include but certainly aren't limited to: Scripture (given that both parties recognize the Bible authoratively), commentaries, theological dictionaries/encyclopedias, lexicon entries, pattern of usage (where there is significant evidence of a pattern), ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) lit, Bible comparisons (for scope of translation variance and general trends only), archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and any relevant information regarding the culture or history of that time.

2. Logical constructs. Not for the beginning debater and definitely not until you've reviewed logical fallacies. Logical constructs are just a list of premises - steps, if you will - that lead to your conclusion. These are argumentst that resemble something along the lines of:

A is true
B is true
If A and B are true, then C is true.
If C is true, Conclusion X is valid.

Logical constructs are not for the faint of heart. You should be prepared to defend each and every one of the premises leading up to your conclusion. Above all else, your logic must be sound.

3. Examples & Analogies. This method of support should come with flashing neon warning labels: use only as a last resort. It is far better, IMO, to concede the argument with your dignity intact than resort to examples and analogies. Examples and analogies can properly be used to support an argument, but choosing valid examples and analogies is extremely difficult. And in my experience, examples and analogies are challenged the most. But, if you're determined...

Examples must be representative. The more examples you use, the stronger your case will be. You should also pre-emptively consider and rebut possible counter-examples.

Analogies must be relevant. The similarities you seek to strike must be both material and important or the argument falls.

Personally, I avoid examples and analogies as a general rule. I've used them, yes. But rarely.

"Winning" a debate...

If you're waiting for an explicit admission of defeat from your opponent, I recommend not holding your breath. I've honestly never seen it happen. I've seen specific points of an argument conceded and I've conceded specific points myself. But I've never, ever seen an entire argument conceded. The closest I can remember to personally conceding an argument is agreeing that my evidence wasn't strong enough to "prove" my case, but even then, I think I argued that the evidence I presented was "persuasive."

So...how do you win?

If winning is your primary goal, you need to utterly discredit your opponent's argument. Don't just prove the position is wrong. Prove it is wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. Then, you prove your position is right beyond any reasonable doubt.

How do you know you've won?

Trust me. You just know. If you have to ask, you didn't win. Not decisively, at any rate. And that's okay. Because winning should not be your focus. Understanding the subject more thoroughly should be the whole point and purpose of debate. Be open to new ideas. I'm not saying you should accept new ideas, but give new ideas a fair hearing. Examine the opposing parties' evidence. Even if you disagree with that evidence or can show it to be invalid, it's another brick to add to the foundation underlying your argument. You'll grasp that argument and perhaps be better able to answer it in future. Ideally, both parties will walk away from the debate with a more thorough grasp of both positions. And in doing so, you both have won.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's very nice. But how do you know you've won, right? Really. LOL

Okay, a few rules of thumbs.

If your opponent suddenly claims that their position is now only their "opinion" (even though they've been arguing their "opinion" for days, weeks, and/or months), you've probably won.

If your opponent starts ridiculing you or attacking you personally and those attacks are the ONLY components of their replies, you've probably won.

If your opponent claims s/he cannot argue with you because you believe you are right, you've probably won. (Both parties enter any debate believing they are right.)

If your opponent criticizes the thoroughness of your argument, you've probably won.

If your opponent abruptly leaves the argument and fails to come back to it within a reasonable amount of time even though your opponent is not othewise absent from the environment in which the debate occurs, the odds are in your favor that you've won. But this is no guarantee. The attention of the opposing party may have been diverted to another debate that is demanding the bulk of that debater's time, for example.

If uninvolved parties say either publicly or privately that you've won and/or that you've proven your points - especially if the uninvolved party shares the platform of the opposing party (for instance, if an atheist agrees that a theist has won an argument against a fellow atheist), you've probably won.

Finally...If you feel you've won a debate, do not announce it to all and sundry. Do not grandly proclaim your victory. If you have legitimately won, the debate's readers will be able to judge that for themselves. Declaring it only shows everyone that you are self-promoting and/or have serious self-esteem issues. A simple "you have failed to support your argument" is quite sufficient. Anything else is just self-aggrandizing, not to mention just plain rude.

Debating 101 - Bible Translations

2008-03-27T09:23:00.004-05:00

Since this is a subject I've needed to explain more times than I care to think about...

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a bit of Aramaic. Most people can't read these ancient languages so most rely on english translations of the Bible such as the King James Version (KJV) or the New International Version (NIV). These translations differ from one another, some significantly, and these differences are often emphasized in debates to prove an argument. Unfortunately, doing so is rarely valid. Why? The person presenting the argument is rarely aware of differences in underlying texts, differences in translation methodology and the significance of both. Those are the biggest pitfalls people most fall into, in my experience. Closely followed by complete ignorance of how to evaluate specific translations.

Underlying Texts

Basically, there are 3 Greek textual families that a translating committee may refer to when a new Bible is commissioned. These are the Textus Receptus (which the KJV is based upon), the Alexandrian Text and the Byzantine (Majority) Text. The Alexandrian comprises the earliest documentary witnesses. The Byzantine comprises the most documentary witnesses. The Textus Receptus...Well, do a generic google search on it and you'll very rapidly grasp issues with the TR, but it's primary benefit is, IMO, tradition.

For a valid comparison, the Bibles should belong to the same textual family. Comparing the KJV with the NIV, for instance, would be a fallacious comparison since they are based on different underlying texts (for a start).

Which underlying text is best?

My opinion only, but I think the Alexandrian text is best because that text type is closest in time to the autographs. But really, the differences between the Majority and Alexandrian texts are very minor, nor are these differences doctrinally significant. Granted, the Textus Receptus has more than a few differences that aren't so minor. Entire passages are found in the Textus Receptus that are not found in either the Alexandrian or Majority Texts. But again, they aren't doctrinally significant. One should be aware of these differences so one doesn't inadvertently cite 1 John 5:7-8 as a proof for the Trinity, for instance (unless one is prepared to argue the intergrity of that text). But the doctrine of the Trinity isn't taught in 1 John 5:7-8 alone. So again, although I think the differences are interesting from the perspective of textual criticism, they are insignificant when it comes to doctrine.

Translation Method

In a nutshell, there are three methods of translating the Greek. The first is formal equivalence, or a word-for-word translation (my personal preference). Examples include the KJV, the NASB, and the YLT. Formal equivalents should be used for ANY argument based on word studies from the Greek!!! Dynamic equivalents, rather than translating the exact word, instead seeks to translate the thought of the original writer (which is helfpul when it comes to figures of speech, etc that the modern reader may be completely unaware of). Examples include the NIV, CEV, and the NEB. Readers should be on guard against possible bias where the translators defer to the thought rather than the literal wording because the passage's thought can be subjective. Finally, we have paraphrased Bibles. Rather than following the word or the thought, these Bibles rephrase the text (the Greek or another translation) in simple, more contemporary language and as such, readers should be extremely on guard against translator bias. Examples include The Message and the Living Bible.

Which translation method is best?

Personally, I think they all are in that they can all be useful in teaching doctrine to different believers in wildly different circumstances. We don't all fit the same cookie cutter mold so why should our Bibles? If you're not familiar with idioms and/or aren't conjoined at the hip with word studies from the original languages, there's nothing wrong with using a dynamic equivalent. I turn to my NIV for devotional purposes. For word studies, yes, you need a formal equivalent. Formal equivalents purport to adhere the closest to the words of the Greek text so would produce the most valid results for comparisons. Paraphrases are a good starting off point for the unchurch, those who are only starting to learn English or can't read well.

As long as you're aware of the strengths and weaknesses of your chosen Bible's methodology, I see nothing inherently wrong with any of them.

Evaluating Bible Translations

There are several important criteria for assessing specific Bibles. In no particular order:

Was the Bible translated by one person or translated by a committee? A committee tends to check one another against translational bias. Not that entire committees cannot exhibit bias, of course, but idiosyncrasities unique to individual translators will have less likelihood of slipping into the text if more than one person is working on the translation. Basically, the more translators on the comittee, the better.

What are the credentials of the translator(s)? If the translators have not formally studied the original languages or cannot prove their expertise (if independently studied), only an idiot would trust them to translate their Bibles. Unless, of course, they are simply paraphrasing an already extant english version. And I'd still be very wary.

Who commissioned the translation and for what purpose (if any)? Generally speaking, if a specific denomination commissioned the translation, check for a broad spectrum of denominations amongst the translation committee members to ensure denominational bias didn't encroach.

How old is the translation and have updated editions been released? With the discovery and study of ancient documents, our understanding of the ancient languages has increased, which says nothing of textual critical issues that may not be reflected in much older Bibles.

How has the translation been received among Bible scholars? If scholars nigh uniformly criticize a particular translation, that's not good, LOL. You don't need glowing reviews from every NT or OT scholar around, but if you notice a significant degree of objection, be wary.

What are valid comparisons?

To make valid comparisons among translations, stay within one translation methodology.

If possible, stay within one underlying textual family. If it's not possible to stay within a single textual family, be aware that criticisms based on differences in the underlying texts are not valid.

Counter-arguments based on the criteria for evaluating translations are valid as long as these criteria differ between the translations offered for comparison (for instance, Bible A was translated by one person whereas Bible B was translated by a committee of 20) and these differences are significant in either number or degree (for instance Bible A was translated by one respected scholar whereas Bible B was translated by 20 unknown/unproven scholars).

Finally, I cannot stress this enough: FORMAL EQUIVALENTS SHOULD ALWAYS AND *ONLY* BE USED IN WORD STUDY COMPARISONS!!! Dynamic equivalents and paraphrases do not claim to be word for word translations, which invalidates them as credible sources for word studies!

Debating 101 - Getting Started

2008-03-24T06:04:00.004-05:00

The next series of posts will involve debate. Techniques. Tips & advice. How to support an argument. Common mistakes and pitfalls to avoid. My more Machiavellian debating ploys.

But we have to learn to walk before we can sprint so I'll start with how to format a proper argument. Some of this may seem painfully obvious, but bear with me. It may be obvious to you. It may be obvious to me, but trust me, I wouldn't mention it unless it became an issue in an argument more than once.

If your opinions are important enough to argue, they are important enough to present them coherently. In print or on the net, that means proper formatting. At the very basic, that means learning how to quote, indent and link, but learning how to bold, italicize, underline and change the size or color of your text is useful as well. If the forum you're posting on is using vBulletin, you can use the following tags:

[indent]your material[/indent]
[quote]material you're responding to[/quote]
[url=http://www.yourlink.com]www.yourlink.com[/url]
[b]bold emphasis[/b]
[i]italics emphasis[/i]
[u]underline emphasis[/u]
[color=blue]color emphasis[/color]
[size=2]change text size[/size]
[font=arial]your text[/font]
[center]center your text[/center]
[left]left justify your text[/left]
[right]right justify your text[/right]

A bit more advanced, but to insert images or smileys:

[img]http://www.specific_link_to_image.gif[/img]

These tags are fairly standard so if the forum you're posting on isn't vBulletin, try them, anyway. More likely than not, you'll need convert them to html tags - just replace the brackets [tag] with the greater & lesser than symbols: <>. If that doesn't work, learn how to format in whatever environment you are arguing in. Sorry to say so, but sadly, it's true - proper formatting makes your posts appear more professional and increases your credibility.

Use the bold, italics, underline, color and size tags (or a combination of them) to emphasize points in your arguments. ANY time you add emphasis to a quote add "(Emphasis mine)" to cue readers.

Use the quote tags when addressing specific comments of your opponent.

Any time you support an argument by quoting an authority and the quote runs longer than a single sentence, use the indent tag to set it off from your comments as a blockquote. Use on-line sources whenever possible and add a link for your readers. Doing so makes it easy for your readers to fact check you or read in context, thereby increasing your credibility. If you didn't find a source on-line, note the author, book and page number(s). If it's a commentary or dictionary, note the entry's name. For example: A.T. Robertson, Robertson's Word Pictures, Luke 23:43. Or something to that effect. (More on proper references later.)

Proper formatting means your arguments are NOT one big old long paragraph. Failing to break your posts into paragraphs is inexcusably rude. A good rule of thumb is 3-5 sentences per paragraph.

Proper formatting also means you take the time to check your spelling, grammar and punctuation. Sure, everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but there's no excuse for arguments chock full of these sorts of errors. Sloppy spelling, grammar and punctuation places an unnecessary burden upon your readers to decipher you. It's RUDE. And pardon me for saying so, but arguments peppered with such rudimentary mistakes makes you look like an idiot. Your credibility is actually damaged by your inability to draft a coherent argument.

Italicize foreign words.

DO NOT TYPE IN ALL CAPS UNLESS YOU INTEND TO CONVEY TO THE READER THAT YOU ARE SHOUTING.

Learn the standard net acronyms if you haven't already: LOL, ROTFL, IMO, KWIM, etc. Don't invent new acronyms or overuse acronyms. Doing so makes you look less professional and can even make you look like a fool. If an opponent is using an acronym you don't know, google it. Don't ask unless you are seeking to draw attention to the acronym and/or your opponent for using an unusual acronym or you are deliberately doing so to appear open and more approachable. (More on deliberately exhibiting ignorance later.)

If you're citing Scripture, always indicate which Bible you are using. If the Bible is nonstandard, do not criticize others for challenging your choice. Be prepared to explain and defend that choice.

As for technique...Everyone has his or her own voice when it comes to writing and there's nothing wrong with that. But a few rules of thumb will increase your general readibility.

1. Vary simple and compound sentences.

2. Avoid word repetition unless varying a word will appear wooden or forced.

3. Don't use pretentious vocabulary. Using "big" words will make you appear intelligent, yes, and can increase the credibity of your position, but not if the average reader doesn't know the word. If the average reader doesn't recognize the word, you're just going to come off as a blowhard.

4. Choose a standard way to format for specific situations and stick with it. For instance, any time I quote Scripture, it appears as so: John 3:16 For God so loved the world...(NASB).

5. Use action verbs (jump, run). Avoid passive verbs (was, is, has).

6. Read your argument aloud before posting to identify awkward wording. Any time you have to interrupt a sentence to catch your breath, your sentence is too long. Break it up.

7. If the enviroment you're debating in has a preview function, use it. If you can edit your argument, re-read your post as soon as you've submitted it and revise, if necessary.

8. Strike the words "never" and "always" from your debating vocabulary.

9. Do not use words like "evidently" or "apparently" unless you have posted explicit evidence that makes your assertion apparent. Speculation is not evident or apparent to anyone.

10. Use humor liberally, but only if you are genuinely funny. If you have to explain a joke, you aren't funny.

Light at the end of the tunnel...

2008-02-06T08:37:00.000-05:00

And glory be, that light isn't a train! Wahoo!

Everything's done except this wk's payroll and balancing the number's for this mth's finance report. And reviewing tonight's Awanas lesson. And planning & prepping tomorrow's Cub Scout Mtgs...But really, considering how bad this past wk has been, I almost feel like I'm on vacation. LOL

My schedule should start clearing Friday...

Drowning in work...

2008-02-01T11:14:00.000-05:00

I am - in a word - overwhelmed. Mostly, it's treasurer's stuff, but some Scout stuff thrown in for good measure. Yesterday was the deadline for filing 4th Quarter 941s for 2007 as well as D Day for giving employees their W-2s. I also had to cobble together a page highlighting our Cub Scout Pack for the Cub Scout Show guidebook and email to that to printer yesterday. Add to that the regular end-of-mth checks & reports and I'm going down by the head and sinking fast.

I rolled out of bed in the wee hours of the morning to tackle this stuff uninterrupted and have roughly half of it finished. Taking the remainder of the day off. My head is imploding.

New focus for the site, at least temporarily

2008-01-21T08:58:00.000-05:00

The WTS primary recruitment book when JWs first began meeting with me was KNOWLEDGE THAT LEADS TO EVERLASTING LIFE. I met with the JWs for nearly a year, reviewing the material in that book and the doctrines introduced therein.

Shortly before our meetings came to an end, the JWs gave me a new book, WHAT DOES THE BIBLE Really TEACH? This book was presented as a newer, more simplified approach and although I was given the choice as to whether or not continue in the KNOWLEDGE book, I was highly encouraged to switch over to the BIBLE TEACH book in our meetings. The JW I met with was discouraged that we'd been meeting for nearly a year (10 months) and had yet to proceed beyond Chapter 5 of the KNOWLEDGE book. Given the relative simplicity of the BIBLE TEACH book, the JW indicated that she felt we'd have better progress by switching over.

Well, in that, she was wrong.

Frankly, I was intellectually offended by the BIBLE TEACH book. To me, it was just a dumbed-down version of the KNOWLEDGE book. Simpler? Yes. It certainly is that. Because the book fails to offer explanations or reasons for many doctrines novel to the WTS to any great depth and some, the book fails to explain at all.

I cannot make it more plain: I can't stand this stupid book. Wallbanger, through and through.

I stopped meeting with the JWs shortly after leaving the KNOWLEDGE book and beginning the BIBLE TEACH book. Partially because the BIBLE TEACH book irritated me so much, I admit, but primarily for other reasons. The JW had begun praying that I would stop turning to a verse's context to understand the verse, for instance, but the straw that broke this camel's back was when the JW persisted in equating interpretation with Scripture. If any evidence contradicted what the WTS taught as its interpretation of Scripture, the JW insisted the evidence was at fault. Not the WTS. Never the WTS. Since we'd been meeting for nearly a year and I'd thoroughly covered orthodox christology (answering all objections presented by the WTS) as well as many other doctrines of the orthodox faith, I believed my work was done. My job, as a believer in Christ, is to present a defense and give the reasons for my hope. It's the Holy Spirit's job to convict and convince each person, not mine. So I quit.

The JW and I had gone through the first 2 chapters of the BIBLE TEACH book and we were due to begin CH3 when I quit. In those chapters, per my routine, I had highlighted sections I disagreed with and jotted rough notes and Scripture references on each.

I have decided to return to those notes, clarify and expand upon them, then post these notes to the site, though I may venture as far as Ch5. To provide a critical analysis to anyone approached by JWs with this book. Some of what's covered, I'll only need to provide a link to that material in the KNOWLEDGE sections of the site, but some of it's new.

I haven't abandoned my work in the KNOWLEDGE book. The subsections particularly will be quite useful for those in the BIBLE TEACH book. But for now, I will at least get the BIBLE TEACH book started.

Pneumonia

2008-01-08T08:52:00.000-05:00

An FYI for those who've wondered where I am...

I had intended to go into my fiction as soon as I finished working on the books for church so I would've been MIA regardless, but I didn't move on to working on my fic, after all - I'm down with pneumonia. This is not an "I'm not allowed to be sick" situation because at this point, if I don't take care of myself, I'll end up in the hospital. Which would have catastrophic repurcussions on my schedule. ROTFL

Lots of rest, lots of fluids...I'll rejoin the world when I'm more fully on the mend.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T07:56:00.000-05:00

I've been enjoying several days off - as much as one can enjoy free time off when you've bronchitus and whiney with it, that is. ;-) Spending time with my family. Books both with and without footnotes. Debates.

But alas, the work I've been studiously ignoring can no longer wait.

Today, I have to work on the church's books. Wrap up December's checks, catch up the electronic register, Dec's EOM statements.. Fix & finish the budget. All of which is due bright & early tomorrow morning (if we don't get snowed under with the 5-11 inches they're calling for, anyway). Yick. I wish I could think of someone better able to do the treasurer's job. I truly do. I'm really not that good at it and deathly afraid I'll louse seriously louse something up. Oh, I can keep the lights on, but the job is a great deal more involved than just keeping the lights on. *sigh*

After the books are straightened out, I'll likely return to my fiction. Traditionally, that's what I do after the holiday rush is over. I hole up with my fiction for a couple of months (as much as I'm able given my obligations, at any rate), work obsessively on whichever mss snags my interest. It's sort of my holiday gift to myself: an activity whose sole merit is personal enjoyment. Someday, I'll have mustered enough discipline to produce an epic journey, but sadly, this is not that day. LOL.

To the books...

Life is What Happens When...

2007-12-20T06:21:00.000-05:00

Everyone's heard the adage alluded to at the top of this post. Life is what happens when you're making other plans. Well, you know what?

Christmas is what happens when you're making other plans, too.

By traditional standards within my family, this holiday season has been a disaster of titanic proportions. Here it is, Dec 20th and the only cookies I've made have been donated to the fire stations in South Cumberland. We didn't put up our tree until last Saturday, didn't decorate it until the 18th (Tuesday). I haven't made (much less distributed) holiday jingles to friends & neighbors - indeed, I didn't even settle on what those jingles would be until yesterday. I bought bakery cookies to take to a Christmas party last week - an unprecedented event for yours truly. I haven't bought my Christmas cards yet. Which says nothing of the gifts still to be purchased.

This would be in direct contrast to my regular holiday season, which is about as traditional as I can possibly make it. Trust me, if you strictly regiment your time from Thanksgiving onward (I even schedule my baking, for pity's sake), you can make your holiday season so Norman Rockwell it's spooky.

Not this year.

This year, Christmas has been happening while I've been making other plans.

Christmas happened at the party I mentioned last week. I desperately rushed to pick up cookies from the bakery, but Christmas happened when the President of Toys for Happiness picked up party-goer's donations halfway through.

Christmas happened when I set up a tree and decorated my Sunday School room, even though our tree at home remained in the box.

Christmas happened when I baked 2 batches of peanutbutter cup cookies for the South Cumberland firemen, even though I haven't baked goodies for our respective families just yet.

Christmas happened when we saved change for my boys' Lottie Moon offering (amazing how much change I tend to accumulate in a month!), when I rushed to get out reimbursement checks so church members would be paid back for church expenses before the holidays, with each of the half dozen (and counting) packages of candy canes that I keep giving away. Christmas happened when my new van's battery died and a stranger stopped to offer to help and a co-worker took time out of his schedule to pick us up.

There are a million and one emergencies that have cropped up in the past few weeks. Jobs and expenses I hadn't planned on. Things that intruded on my strict holiday schedule. Getting in my way. Throwing me off.

But Christmas happened, anyway.

Christmas is happening still.

With only a few days before Christmas, I know everyone's rushing madly around with a kazillion items on their respective to-do lists. I know there are people like me, beating themselves up because they didn't get some things done or didn't do them as well as they wanted and goodness gracious, unless the 24hr day magically stretches to 30hrs (preferably 40), there just isn't enough time, is there?

But while you're racing about this holiday season, in these busy days before we celebrate the birth of our Savior, STOP!!!

That's right.

Stop.

Just for a second.

Look.

Listen.

Christmas is happening all around you. The spirit of the season is unfolding before you. Even when everything is going wrong. Especially when everything is going wrong.

By my family's traditions, this holiday season has been an unmitigated catastrophe, but in our hearts, even in the hearts of my children, this has been one of our best holy-day seasons yet.

And if you see me at the mall this morning, wave. Say hi. We'll all still be crazy, but you'll be one smile (and one candy cane LOL) richer.

An Easy Week!

2007-12-10T07:41:00.000-05:00

*Monday - band concert
*Tuesday - holiday shopping trip
*Wednesday - Awanas Christmas party (no lesson) & Business Mtg
*Thursday - pastoral care & pack mtg
*Friday - basketball practice
*Saturday - baking for Cumberland firemen
*Sunday - SS lesson & baking for in-laws

What's sad is after the past several weeks, yes, I do consider that an easy week.

ROTFL!

I'm shopping locally this morning, sewing patches this afternoon...Haven't cracked a book in ages and don't expect to have time to do so until after the holidays. I'm in the Bible, of course, just not theology & philosophy. Which I miss. Horribly. *sigh*

I Brake for Family

2007-12-08T07:41:00.000-05:00

Snow & ice this week cancelled several meetings, which is good, because my back is killing me (still). The cancellations also gave me time to work on the finance committee reports & the church budget. The budget's done (except I forgot to total the lot - a quick & easy job I'll do in just a second). The numbers on the finance committee reports balance, but I left out a couple things I couldn't figure out how to do. One thing, I belatedly figured out and did yesterday. The other, I got a reply to my email from the old treasurer walking me through it so I'll be good once I sit down and follow her directions. Not today, though. I've put it in - literally - 30+ hrs on treasurer stuff this week. Another 4 or 5hrs subbing for our church secretary. Devoted 8 hrs to scouts. This would be on top of looking for & buying a new van, returning the rental, trying to squeeze in a bit of holiday tasks that couldn't wait any longer (and I'm still WAY behind)...

Put a fork in me, I'm done. LOL

Today is all about our family and nothing but. If our road unfreezes, we'll take our boys to Lowes Build & Grow, do a wee bit of Christmas shopping this afternoon. If not, we'll stay home and put up our Christmas tree, maybe bake a little or do some crafty-type thing.

Our kids have made a lot of sacrifices the past couple weeks. In between my subbing for the secretary and all the time I had to devote to figuring out treasurer stuff, scout obligations (training, popcorn)...My husband's been able to spend more time with our kids than I have, but that isn't saying much.

We both have jobs that need to be finished by tomorrow, but we won't make any apologies for stealing this time for our kids. Something's wrong with our priorities when we've set up a Christmas tree for my Sunday School room, but still haven't set up our tree at home.

So nyah to anyone who has issues with us taking today off to spend time with our kids.

LOL

Whine, whine, whine

2007-12-04T05:21:00.001-05:00

Yesterday, Monday, was supposed to be my day off. It was not. Today was also supposed to be my day off. It won't be, either.

I finally had time to get checked out at the ER yesterday. My ears are still ringing because I apparently got a concussion in the accident and my back's killing me because I strained a muscle. The doc gave me meds, but they put me to sleep. I can't afford to sleep, too much work to do, so I'm pretty much SOL. Hurting and snarly about it, frankly.

Gr.

This morning, we'll look for a new van. If God is smiling on me, my husband will go to the bank to do the loan paperwork while I stop at church to do some copying for my pastor. Continue working on EOM treasurer reports this afternoon. Memorial Day Flag Project Organization Mtg early this evening, stop downtown to pick up extension cords & more decorations for my SS class, drop off a boy's popcorn order at some pt, then home to hopefully finish the EOM reports. THEN, I get to start on the budget.

Feeling much abused and maligned here...

When It Rains, It Monsoons

2007-11-30T05:12:00.000-05:00

My van is totalled. A truck turning onto the main road hit me, sent me kareening into an electric pole (and over it, actually - SNAP!). The airbags deployed so I'm a little fuzzy about what happened after that, but the van ended up occupying someone's front steps, which was interesting considering that side of the road is a hill. ;-)

My van is toast, but I walked away with minor bumps and bruises. I'm sore and ache-y today, of course, but considering, I'm very blessed. It could've been a lot worse. NOTE TO ALL: WEAR YOUR SEATBELTS!!!! If I hadn't been, I'm convinced I'd have significantly more complaints this morning.

The other driver's insurance accepted fault for the accident almost immediately and we had a rented van to replace my poor totalled one within three hours. I still have to sign the medical waiver promising not to sue and they have to settle what's left on our loan. Need to clean out the stuff still in the van and start looking for a new one...

I miss my van.

Horribly.

I'm working at church this morning, picking up cub scout popcorn orders and meeting with the insurance guy this afternoon, 4-H this evening and my husband is coaching his first basketball practice with my older son tonight. Tomorrow, I've got cub scout training all day, possibly bellringing with our 4-H club in the evening, then I'll spend tomorrow night working on treasurer stuff, sorting popcorn orders and preparing my Sunday School lesson. Sunday, I'm at church in the morning, home briefly, then back at church for parents to pick up their scout's popcorn order. Then, I get to work on the church budget.

I'm taking Monday off.

Just a Head's Up...

2007-11-29T08:09:00.000-05:00

I usually only have one Hell Week in any given month, but mysteriously, my November ended up with 2. I'm hip-deep in the 2nd and quite a bit has been added in because, hey, when it rains, it pours.

Right now, I don't even have time to breathe, but until everything blew up so spectacularly, I was reading Plantinga and William Lane Craig re the philosophy of religion.

Unless something else goes wrong, I'll reach the light at the end of my tunnel on Monday. Here's hoping it's not a train. LOL

I am just a wee bit mental right now...LOL

2007-11-20T13:37:00.000-05:00

Our church treasurer quit and I agreed to take it over. Seeing as how I haven't looked at any books since college or done payroll since high school - and all of these were exercises (as in I have NEVER done books IRL) - the past week or so has been...Interesting. To say the least.

I've also been reading philosophy again, specifically Plantinga.

And debating (on and off - mostly off).

My brain is melting!!!

;-)

I'm taking some much-needed time off over the Thanksgiving holiday...

Debating 101 - On NOT Being a Snot

2007-11-08T06:03:00.000-05:00

Under certain, specific circumstances, I indicated in my previous posting that I believe using satire and sarcasm to make a point is appropriate and I wouldn't apologize for doing so.

In this posting, I'm going to look at instances when NOT being a snot is not only appropriate but necessary - when eating a large slice of humble pie is the order of the day and a wise debater will get his or her napkin and fork ready.

I'm talking about those occasions when you are - when I am - WRONG.

Everybody makes mistakes - including me. On one memorable occasion, I quoted a source secondarily (meaning the quote was contained within a source other than the original). There wasn't enough context included of the orginal material to ensure the secondary source had used the quote properly and much to my chagrin, the secondary source hadn't used the quote properly at all. On other occasions, my wording hasn't been as precise as it reasonably should have - or could have - been. There have also been times when I've misunderstood my opponent's argument or a specific element of it. Logical fallacies? I've blundered into some of them, probably all of them at one point or another. And hey, there have been times when I've gotten mad and said things I regretted, too.

We all make mistakes.

There's no avoiding it. We can try, of course. Studying logical fallacies (any generic search should turn up a wealth of information to review) is a good way to head off serious blunders and it NEVER hurts to pause before hitting that submit button. Re-read your post in search of ambiguous wording. Better, read it aloud. Your ears will identify stylistic awkwardness, if nothing else - any time you run out of breath, your sentence is way too long. ;-) If you aren't that great at spelling, grammar, or your typing is awful - spell/grammar check are your friends. (If your post is so incoherent or difficult to read that people skip over it, the brilliance of the content won't matter and consistently poor spelling/grammar gives your opponents an ad hom to beat you over the head with.)

But no matter what we do, we are ALL going to louse something up from time to time.

The question isn't if we make a mistake, but rather what we do WHEN we make those mistakes.

A P O L O G I Z E.

It bears repeating:

! ! ! A P O L O G I Z E ! ! !

Please allow me to clarify. An apology usually involves wording along the lines of "I'm sorry" or (for me) "My apologies." Confess your mistake, SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY. Then, apologize. It's that simple.

"I'm sorry, but..." is NOT an apology. "I'm sorry, but..." is a justification. Don't use it. Ever. It's a poor, poor excuse for an apology and only serves as a means of attacking your opponent and/or shifting the blame. You may, of course, explain what provoked your error, but you should only do so if the explanation does not point fingers at your opponent and only in so far as the explanation defines the behavior you are indicating that you will try to avoid repeating in future. (Repentance - ALWAYS repent. The importance of repentance comes into play later.)

"I'm sorry you feel that way" and the like are also just artful dodges. They aren't genuine apologies at all. You're not apologizing for your behavior. You're just saying you're sorry that your opponent felt hurt/angry. That neatly evades your taking responsibility for the behavior that caused the anger/hurt. You aren't owning up to having done anything wrong.

Don't do it.

"I'm sorry" or "my apologies" is short, sweet, and perfectly adequate for putting the unpleasant business behind you. When we're wrong, the experience is humbling enough. Make every effort to prolong the experience as little as possible. Belabor your apology ONLY in those instances when the error you've committed has inflicted serious harm and only if such belaboring would benefit whomever you've wronged. Your apology should always focus on the one(s) you injured - NOT on appeasing your guilty conscience.

Alright.

Now that I've addressed what an apology entails...When is an apology warranted?

Apologize any and every time you make a mistake, no matter how minor (you think) the mistake is, no matter who calls you on it and even if (especially if) NO ONE calls you on it.

Apologize for a minor errors because even though the mistake may seem insignificant to you, the mistake was obviously significant to whoever called you on it. It matters to them. Pointing out that you think it's a petty matter only denigrates your opponent, which is just another form of blame-shifting. Don't do it. The fact that it was minor to you doesn't negate the fact that your mistake MAY have been important to someone else. Even if you suspect your opponent doesn't genuinely consider your mistake important and is only grandstanding to try to make you look bad, confess and apologize. If your opponent is making a show of it, more likely than not, that will be apparent. A sincere apology given to an insincere and exaggerated protest reveals the character and integrity of both parties. Remember that.

If YOU are the one to identify your error, own up to it regardless and as soon as possible. Doesn't matter if your opponent is unlikely to discover your mistake. Confess it, anyway. Doing so preserves the intergrity of your argument. Welcome to the internet - you may win against that specific opponent but a subsequent reader may stumble upon the mistake later. Your goal should never be winning against a specific opponent - your goal should be to prove your position is correct. Leaving an error in your argument...You may win the battle, but you've lost the war.

In the short-term, mistakes are also opportunities for your opponent to criticize your position. Rob him or her of those opportunities as much as possible, especially on those occasions when the criticism is legitimate. YOU want to be the one to identify your mistakes. It leaves you in the driver's seat as far as damage control is concerned.

But what if your opponent is a total jerk? One of those people who will never, ever in a million years admit their own mistakes, much less apologize for them? One of those people who will take an admission of wrong as a club to pummel you with? Someone who will crow giddily about your mistake?

Those are all more reasons TO apologize. For starters, two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that your opponent's behavior is less than exemplary is no reason or excuse to sink to his or her level. Personal integrity is not relative. Live the way you claim to believe. How others act, behave or believe shouldn't ever enter that equation. If you claim to believe in honesty, be honest. If you claim to believe in compassion, be compassionate. If you claim to believe in humility, be humble. If your opponent's behavior is dishonest, uncompassionate and proud, that's their burden. Don't make it yours.

But...Just to show that I'm not completely altruistic...The more your opponent acts like a jerk, the better you'll look in comparison if you resist the urge to respond in kind and in fact go in the complete opposite direction. Trust me, if you're willing to own up to a mistake while your opponent couldn't be forced to confess to a glaring error if you held a gun on him or her, that STRENGTHENS your position. Appearances, sure. Sugar is sweeter than vinegar and the simple fact of the matter is people are more willing to listen to and consider the calm voice of reason rather than the insulting and arrogant jerk. But further than that. If your opponent is unwilling to admit to an obvious error, what about mistakes that aren't so obvious? Ones you (or the reader) may not have picked up on? It casts doubt on your opponent's position because we simply cannot know if there are unidentified contradictions in the position that your opponent is aware of but he or she isn't sharing.

Own up to your mistake. Apologize for it - unconditionally. Indicate you will do your best NOT to repeat your mistake, then follow through on that. (I can guarantee I never quoted secondary sources without adequate context again.) Remember the repentance I noted above? If you've repented - genuinely repented - when your opponent insists on constantly reminding you of your admission of wrong, you are able to point to your sincere repentance and fairly criticize your opponent's unforgiving attitude. Quote your (hopefully humble) apology and any instance that demonstrates your repentance, if you can.

They think beating you with your mistake will make them look good.

They're wrong.

Everybody knows that admitting to, apologizing for and repenting of a mistake isn't wrong, either. Some, however, consider doing so in a debate as a show of weakness. It doesn't have to be. Not at all. Refusal to admit a wrong? That's a weakness. Taking responsibility for our mistakes, that's a strength. Mistakes define our integrity. Let them best exemplify yours.

Debating 101 - On Being a Snot

2007-11-06T07:01:00.000-05:00

I have been criticized recently, by 2 different people in 2 different debates on 2 different boards for being a snot (in so many words). That's what you call independent witnesses, LOL.

Are they right?

Sure, they are!

In debates, I employ sarcasm and satire under specific circumstances. Deliberately so. I believe, under specific circumstances, sarcasm and satire are appropriate responses - even for Christians. Perhaps, especially for Christians. Let's look at some of those circumstances, shall we?

1. If an opponent announces that I've ceded a point when I have not, depending. On these occasions, I quote the relevant portion of my post and point out my opponent's error. Everybody can make an honest mistake, though, so I'm not going lambast anyone for that alone. But if my opponent has crowed about my alleged admission, I take him or her to task for it - severely if the opponent has made a big to-do about my alleged admission or has made this mistake previously.

Why?

If a big splash was made of the error, I'll make a bigger splash to correct the error to ensure no one is doubtful that the correction was made. It's like newspaper corrections - usually buried deep, deep in the paper. Nobody sees them, unless by accident. Not mine. In a manner of speaking, I put my corrections on the front page, above the fold.

If my opponent has made this mistake previously...Once is a mistake, twice is a pattern. So I'll also make a big splash of the correction as a preventative measure. If I tear into you for misreading me, I guarantee you'll think twice before doing it again. You'll be absolutely positive that I've genuinely ceded a point before announcing I've done so next time.

In those instances, my sarcasm and satire serves a necessary purpose: emphasizing the correction and a warning against repeating the mistake.

2. If an opponent consistently fails to support an argument they persist in asserting is true. Please note the word "consistently." Generally speaking, I ask opponents to support their arguments (from authority, from Scripture, whatever) at least twice before I turn to sarcasm. The more frequently an opponent fails to support his or her argument, the more sarcastic I become.

Why?

My opponent's persistent failure to support his or her position shows the weakness of his or her position. I emphasize the failure to showcase that weakness. An unsupported argument is just an opinion. Granted, everyone's entitled to their opinions, but personal opinions hardly provide a credible foundation in asserting a truth against a properly supported argument. I give personal opinions that disagree with my properly supported arguments every bit of the respect they deserve: none.

Satire and sarcasm serve a purpose: highlighting the weakness of my opponents position.

3. If an opponent equates his or her interpretation of Scriptures with the Scriptures themselves. In effect, any instance in which my opponent asserts or implies that if I don't agree with his or her position, I don't believe the Bible.

Why is sarcasm appropriate then?

To emphasize the distinction between my opponent's personal interpretation and the Word of God. Unless your name is Jesus, every interpretation of Scripture is open to error - including mine. Including my opponent's. Unlike my opponent in such instances, however, I am open to the possibility that my interpretation of Scripture may very well be wrong. Equating one's position with Scripture displays collosal hubris and reveals that the opponent does not recognize the fact that his or her interpretation may be in error. My opponent has, in fact, robbed the Bible of its inerrancy and applied that inerrancy to his/herself.

Sarcasam and satire serves a purpose - emphasizing the colossal hubris of my opponent and highlighting that personal interpretation is not equivalent to the Word of God.

4. If an opponent discounts my arguments without ever actually interacting with them. Reasons for failure to interact with my arguments tend to include (but certainly aren't limited to):

*we must look at the entirety of Scriptures, not just these verses
*my position isn't orthodox or my beliefs are atypical
*my position is biased because I am a: Trinitarian, Protestant, Christian, etc
*vague references to ambiguity when a word has more than one meaning
*one authority disagrees and therefore negates every other expert in the field
*since we don't know xyz exhaustively, we can't and shouldn't draw conclusions about xyz on existing evidence (a valid argument if existing evidence is inadequate, however)
*"I know what I believe is true and nothing you say will convince me otherwise" etc
*I'm quibbling over petty details (ironic when my opponent has demanded those details)
*I'm just borrowing from xyz (without proving the particular authority invalid)
*I'm too emotionally upset to discuss the issue rationally (???)

And if I point out the error of any of the above, then push the opponent to address an argument, you can add "I'm mean" to the list as well.

Why is satire and sarcasm appropriate?

To emphasize that my opponent has failed to refute my argument as well as stress the lengths to which some will go to in order to dodge even addressing those arguments - especially when ad hom attacks come into play.

Sarcasm and satire is an appopriate response, at times. Even for Christians. Christ himself used it (Matthew 23). I recommend "Offensisensitivity: Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire?" at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.html for an in-depth consideration of satire in the biblical and extrabiblical texts.

I have been a snot. Yep. But if you're looking for an apology, you won't find one here. Because, sometimes, the Faith benefits by showing all the snide mockery, disdain and contempt that a comment or argument deserves.

Polishing amber and 4-H

2007-11-01T05:11:00.000-05:00

Last summer, I bought half a dozen chunks of raw amber and different grades of sandpaper to polish them with during Canalfest specifically for this month's Cub Scout theme - Indian Nations. A bit pricey, but was okay since I needed so few kits. My Bears would polish the amber and make amulets out of them as a special den project.

I hadn't counted on 7 webelos tagging along with my den.

I'm trying to decide whether or not to call the vendor to try to get the extra amber to cover my Webelos. If I do, my special den project will have cost me an obscene amount of money, at least as far as Scout projects go. If I don't, I've wasted what I already invested. :-(

Up for today...Prepping for Scouts, volunteering at the hospital, then scout meetings tonight.

Tomorrow's 4-H, but only if I figure out why the robotics software isn't displaying properly. I'm so mad about 4-H right now (and have been for months) that I just want to quit, anyway. I've pretty much decided TO quit once robotics is done. Our new 4-H educator is pushing project record books (so much it's now a requirement for fair) and has been scheduling leader mtgs...Which is all fine, well and good, but 4-H is supposed to be my NO STRESS activity. If some of the kids don't want to do record books, I'm not going to hold a gun on them. And leader mtgs...why? Everything I've done with 4-H over the past 3 yrs has been ON MY OWN. Help from the extension ofc has been marginal, at best, and I have enough leader mtgs to get myself to already, thanks so much.

If I can't figure out the display problems in robotics, I may cancel 4-H and quit altogether now instead of later. The other family in our club would be fine, could join another club (though having to pay dues and for their project record books would be a rude awakening for them - I pay for everything for our 4-H club). And I could get my kids into a club on MY side of town, where they could do it with their friends and I wouldn't have to be the stupid leader.

We'll see.

Just a few more hours...

2007-10-28T07:28:00.000-05:00

Thursday's corn maze with Scouts was rescheduled to Saturday because of rain, but we had to throw together an indoor pack meeting Thursday night to take the corn maze's place (on top of the hr and a half's worth of phone calls).

Friday's recruitment mtg, then the Halloween party after (rain or no rain, we did it anyway and I must say, I make an excellent zombie, drenched AND dry, LOL).

Yesterday, we had Lowes Build & Grow in the morning, was at the corn maze at 1pm for the rescheduled scouts trip, then back again at 4pm for the Awanas trip to the corn maze.

I AM SO SPENT.

But all I have left is teaching my Sunday School class this morning, a handful of errands before and after, then an Awana ldr mtg after 10:30 worship. I'm already chuckling over my Sunday School lesson. The one in the book is, IMNSHO, dull as dirt so I'm going to set my middle schoolers to debating whether or not Christians should believe in ghosts. What does the Bible say? Got my references ready, ought to be interesting. If nothing else, I'm curious to see if I'll get yelled at for bringing the subject up. LOL!

I'm too burned out - I'm skipping the Awana ldr mtg after 10:30 worship service.

I NEED A BREAK!!!

After this morning, I'm off til Wednesday!

Rain, Rain Go Away...

2007-10-24T18:24:00.000-05:00

No Halloween parade this evening. We decided to cancel due to monsoon-like conditions. The parade was supposed to be something to do for fun - not a test of endurance. ;-) The good news is cancelling gave me the night off. Once, I'd spent an hr and a half making cancellation phone calls, that is. LOL. Nor is that counting time spent answering all the calls from parents checking on our parade-marching status BEFORE we gave the infernal rain every opportunity to stop and decided it'd be best to cancel.

A night off.

During Hell Week.

How bizarre.

Hell Week - The Too Much Fun Version, LOL

2007-10-23T07:00:00.000-05:00

This is October's Hell Week. Don't recall if I've mentioned as yet, but usually, one week out of every month is ridiculously overscheduled. I don't know why or how it happens, it just works out that way. :-) I call my ridiculously overscheduled week Hell Week. Welcome to October's. With a twist - most of this week's events are fun stuff for Halloween. Instead of meetings to plan, organize and prep for, I have whole EVENTS to plan, organize and prep for:

*Wednesday - Cub Scout Pack marches in the S. Cumberland Halloween parade
*Thursday - Cub Scout trip to the corn maze (our October pack mtg)
*Friday - scout recruitment mtg; Halloween party with friends after
*Saturday - Awana trip to the corn maze + band competition (I get to be in 2 places at once again, wahoo!)
*Sunday - church

Today's list of absolutely must-be-done jobs...Payday shopping, make signs for the boys to carry in tomorrow's parade (at least the banner's done), approx 3dz calls to scout parents (parade) and Awana parents (corn maze). I'm also picking up hats so I can FINALLY mail the soldiers' hats out. Oh, wait. I need to call Council about scheduling the recruitment mtg an hr earlier so we can make it to our friends' Halloween party on Friday, too. Wouldn't hurt to stop at the library to pay for the book my boys lost, either...It'd be a good idea to start copying, collating and stuffing parent folders for recruitment on Friday, too.

In a word: ACK

Scheduling compromise

2007-10-17T07:25:00.000-05:00

This week was scheduled light because my brother's trial was originally scheduled to start today. Although we were fairly sure he'd get the continuance, it wasn't granted until last week. Sure, once I found out I didn't need to be there, I could've filled up the cleared days on the calendar like a normal week, but blank spots on our calendar were too lovely to resist so I compromised. Today's normal (hospital in the afternoon, Awanas tonight), but I kept tomorrow evening clear so we could visit my mother-in-law.

Anyway, I haven't done any work on my omniscience paper since the day I finished (but failed to upload) part 3 in the church office. Too distracted by a debate with an atheist. :-( I will, however, upload part 3 this morning. I've also begun the task of checking and updating my links (if possible). Site maintenance is a chore I dread, but a necessary evil nonetheless. I hadn't checked links since January 2007 on some pages. Quite a few were broken. Blech.

Back to my real life...LOL

2007-10-10T07:48:00.000-05:00

Monday and Tuesday of this week wasn't so bad. I'm substituting for our church secretary this week, but there's really not a whole lot to do in the office right now (nothing that's going to demand long stretches of my time and attention at any rate) so I still had loads of time to get my stuff done - including the fine-tuning of the next part of my omniscience paper (and I confess - playing around on the computer when I should've been working on the omniscience paper, LOL).

Today, the regular craziness returns, though. I'm at the hospital in the afternoon, then Awanas tonight and unless I plan on serving Fritos for dinner my morning had best include a trip to the grocery store. ;-) Tomorrow's just dreadful - working at church all morning, the hospital in the afternoon, then scout leader meeting at night...Suffice it to say, I'm scheduled through next Monday with a million and one details and pet projects to take care of between.

If Shirley doesn't have much for in pastoral care, I may work more on the omniscience paper there. I'm in the homestretch and finally getting somewhat antsy to have the blasted thing done!

This week has been LOVELY

2007-10-05T07:40:00.000-05:00

Positively lovely. Oh, I had a scout meeting at Council, pastoral care and various errands to run, but otherwise...I was practically on vacation. WONDERFUL. I feel like a new woman.

Actually, I'm still on vacation. Nothing too pressing on the docket the whole weekend, wahoo! I work for our church secretary all next week and my week's chock full of meetings besides so I'm taking my R&R while I can get it. ;-)

FREE DAY!!!!

2007-10-01T09:58:00.001-05:00

I love Mondays. Tuesdays, too. I love working inside my church and community, don't get me wrong, but man, did I need the breather this week.

Somewhat of a breather, anyway. One of my sons was stung by a bee after 4-H Saturday. He has a localized allergic reaction to bee stings - his ankle has swollen to roughly twice its normal size. It's painful and he's having some difficulty walking on it. Last time, he was stung in the arm. Painful, uncomfortable, lasted about a week, but it didn't interfere with school. This, I'm not quite sure what to do about.

Anyway, I'm relaxing today. Spent some time this morning responding to a couple debates I jumped into last week. The rest of the day, I'll spend in my fiction. I write really, really bad fiction, but writing for fun is allowed. ;-)