Subjects presented in order
Introduction
1. Recorded Introduction:
Link to alternative site for immediate play [ASC Audio_7 11/14]
Edit. Tape Intro. Don 11/14
Audio_7 11/14
Present
Part A. a explanation of Part B. which the secretary and convener objected and his words:-
"I did not publish it because of the inclusion of ‘Rabbis’ and ‘Jewry’ and ‘Rabbinical
influence’.
The Enron documentary did not attribute any blame for the criminal conduct of Enron
executives and staffs to Rabbis.
If I publish this and then someone asks me to explain the connection between the conduct of
Enron executives and Rabbis I would be unable to make a connection."
How anyone other than someone who's been instructed on what constitutes the sacrosanct,
could make the claim the secretary attributed to the Part B., drawing the inference stated above,
has misunderstood the blog intention. On a misunderstanding being the reason for delay, delay to publish this original (Part B.) post. Now having to explain the self-evident (I would think!). This lead-in/out to the sound file is incidental, nothing to do with the promotion of or other intent regarding current Judaism. The wording on this issue neutral. Surely the theme of this (Part B.) -- again claimed self-evident -- is how a question and particularly one "pointed" can have consequence and can be life changing, even when a answer in response is genuine.
What our club secretary/editor must understand, the uninitiated on the subject of sacrosancitity/sacrosanctness haven't time etc. to go around the neighbourhood searching for by-laws listed on community notice boards, a different one each time a by-law is promulgated, enforced by the authorised sanctioned to interpret (or misinterpret) as they see fit. This by way of example of the position the blogger was put; the blogger told too independent, interpreted (by the blogger) a expression of a freedom post the reformation denied.
So to put the issue to rest a blogger's liberty to self-expression . It came by a video production viewed by DVD player. "Holocaust", mini-series, first episode; a memorable scene of Jewish men being processed by officials, a question and answer experience, an believable as popular history has recorded -- not in recollection ..., originally put to air 1980's circa. Incidentally, another issue coming before the Federal Court in this country, on behalf of a child in (refugee) detention. Maybe after seeing the above ("Holocaust") the urgers could think kindly about the care and welfare they receive. Both circumstances that are arranged, nation changing and as history shows the first victim FREEDOM.
As ASC members were involved in resolution. A consensus on the documentary: the conduct of two chief financial officers working within Enron mention worthy. One becoming the major land
owner in Colorado and the other presented as an "innovative" accountant, ending this period
of his life arraigned as his CEO boss.
The Part B. though amended was still unsatisfactory to the secretary. In the Bible there
is chapter 16 of the book of Leviticus, where the term "escaped goat" comes. The
sacrificial goat is the one soliciting sympathy (would you not think?), and that's how Mr
Skilling and others can be considered if the doco. is assessed fairly.
The blog explained should(?) satisfy the secretary and members and will be published
accordingly.
Part B.
Something came to mind from a doco. titled Enron, reminded me of what a acquaintance told me
many years back. The acquaintance, non-Jewish had an interview with a Rabbi -- a New
Zealander -- who put a question in the form of a statement to the acquaintance who was
there for the same reason. It was not the question but the answer " I believe (or think)
you (the Rabbi) is right (correct)" [Remember it was some time ago]. This was the gist of
the reply. Immediately led to my acquaintance's dismissal and abrupt exit from the Rabbi's
presence. It wasn't the correct response!
So with Jeffrey Skilling -- much vaunted in the doco. as a prime villain in the collapse
of Enron. When questioned as a student "Are you clever?" he replied "fucking clever". A
aside comment on Jeffrey from the narrative, read from a prepared script. Later Jeffrey
was to end up on charges and seen (camera capture) manacled. Taken as a answer considered
intemperate, yet (Jeffrey) to be engaged in a career which Jewry traditionally
predominates. It seems that his answer too(sic) was to weigh on Jeffrey. If you don't
know it, Rabbi's have more than a spiritual-religious place in the life of a Synagogue.
The extent of Rabbinical influence prevailing (as a consideration from the foregoing) in
corporate business is discreetly hidden if this be the case. This is not to say, those
proprietaries, the upper echelon of commerce don't promote other than on merit. As was the
case with Jeffrey, and as I've been reliably told Zionism (Jewry included) don't agenda
something only to serve one purpose.
To sum-up the Present, having previously viewed a doco. "Inside Job" -- a "dissection" of
the GFC that occurred about 5 years after Enron's wind-up. Too much fund money unable to
find accommodation is evident in both instances. It didn't take long for the shrewd on the
inside to personally realise opportunity was in the offering.
To read in conjunction with Audio_7 11/14
Link to alternative site for immediate play of discussion following.
"I did not publish it because of the inclusion of ‘Rabbis’ and ‘Jewry’ and ‘Rabbinical
influence’.
The Enron documentary did not attribute any blame for the criminal conduct of Enron
executives and staffs to Rabbis.
If I publish this and then someone asks me to explain the connection between the conduct of
Enron executives and Rabbis I would be unable to make a connection."
How anyone other than someone who's been instructed on what constitutes the sacrosanct,
could make the claim the secretary attributed to the Part B., drawing the inference stated above,
has misunderstood the blog intention. On a misunderstanding being the reason for delay, delay to publish this original (Part B.) post. Now having to explain the self-evident (I would think!). This lead-in/out to the sound file is incidental, nothing to do with the promotion of or other intent regarding current Judaism. The wording on this issue neutral. Surely the theme of this (Part B.) -- again claimed self-evident -- is how a question and particularly one "pointed" can have consequence and can be life changing, even when a answer in response is genuine.
What our club secretary/editor must understand, the uninitiated on the subject of sacrosancitity/sacrosanctness haven't time etc. to go around the neighbourhood searching for by-laws listed on community notice boards, a different one each time a by-law is promulgated, enforced by the authorised sanctioned to interpret (or misinterpret) as they see fit. This by way of example of the position the blogger was put; the blogger told too independent, interpreted (by the blogger) a expression of a freedom post the reformation denied.
So to put the issue to rest a blogger's liberty to self-expression . It came by a video production viewed by DVD player. "Holocaust", mini-series, first episode; a memorable scene of Jewish men being processed by officials, a question and answer experience, an believable as popular history has recorded -- not in recollection ..., originally put to air 1980's circa. Incidentally, another issue coming before the Federal Court in this country, on behalf of a child in (refugee) detention. Maybe after seeing the above ("Holocaust") the urgers could think kindly about the care and welfare they receive. Both circumstances that are arranged, nation changing and as history shows the first victim FREEDOM.
As ASC members were involved in resolution. A consensus on the documentary: the conduct of two chief financial officers working within Enron mention worthy. One becoming the major land
owner in Colorado and the other presented as an "innovative" accountant, ending this period
of his life arraigned as his CEO boss.
The Part B. though amended was still unsatisfactory to the secretary. In the Bible there
is chapter 16 of the book of Leviticus, where the term "escaped goat" comes. The
sacrificial goat is the one soliciting sympathy (would you not think?), and that's how Mr
Skilling and others can be considered if the doco. is assessed fairly.
The blog explained should(?) satisfy the secretary and members and will be published
accordingly.
Part B.
Something came to mind from a doco. titled Enron, reminded me of what a acquaintance told me
many years back. The acquaintance, non-Jewish had an interview with a Rabbi -- a New
Zealander -- who put a question in the form of a statement to the acquaintance who was
there for the same reason. It was not the question but the answer " I believe (or think)
you (the Rabbi) is right (correct)" [Remember it was some time ago]. This was the gist of
the reply. Immediately led to my acquaintance's dismissal and abrupt exit from the Rabbi's
presence. It wasn't the correct response!
So with Jeffrey Skilling -- much vaunted in the doco. as a prime villain in the collapse
of Enron. When questioned as a student "Are you clever?" he replied "fucking clever". A
aside comment on Jeffrey from the narrative, read from a prepared script. Later Jeffrey
was to end up on charges and seen (camera capture) manacled. Taken as a answer considered
intemperate, yet (Jeffrey) to be engaged in a career which Jewry traditionally
predominates. It seems that his answer too(sic) was to weigh on Jeffrey. If you don't
know it, Rabbi's have more than a spiritual-religious place in the life of a Synagogue.
The extent of Rabbinical influence prevailing (as a consideration from the foregoing) in
corporate business is discreetly hidden if this be the case. This is not to say, those
proprietaries, the upper echelon of commerce don't promote other than on merit. As was the
case with Jeffrey, and as I've been reliably told Zionism (Jewry included) don't agenda
something only to serve one purpose.
To sum-up the Present, having previously viewed a doco. "Inside Job" -- a "dissection" of
the GFC that occurred about 5 years after Enron's wind-up. Too much fund money unable to
find accommodation is evident in both instances. It didn't take long for the shrewd on the
inside to personally realise opportunity was in the offering.
To read in conjunction with Audio_7 11/14
Link to alternative site for immediate play of discussion following.
712_0103 11/14
CONCLUSION with a vote of thanks for the secretary evenings events.
No comments:
Post a Comment