tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post218107992922561725..comments2023-11-05T20:19:44.812+13:00Comments on Ambassador Watch: United - kamikaze seasonGavinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03060097218905523899noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-57859377718475628262009-08-08T00:36:46.450+12:002009-08-08T00:36:46.450+12:00H Skeptic...
"Part of the problem may be tha...H Skeptic...<br /><br />"Part of the problem may be that I come from a WCG background, where the bible was considered god-inspired and infallible."<br /><br />With my experience...it wasn't the teaching that the bible was infallible, it was with the parts of the bible that they emphasized (law, instead of grace, "you can't" instead "you can"). <br /><br />Beyond that, though, there seems to be something wrong with the culture of the COG's (and old WCG) that is outside, or seperate, from their theology (although I think its related); this "something" tends to alienate, divide and seperate their members, both from non-members, but also people within the church (cliques), and to a certain extent...i think the culture even forces one to divide the self; its easy to see hypocrisy in any church (unfortunately), but it seems to be easier to see it in the Cog's: maybe it is because they think they are so spiritually enlightened or more "Holy" than others. Maybe its because they "strain out a knat, but swallow a camel." <br /><br />I don't know, but I really would suggest you get "Psychology through the eyes of faith" - it accentuates the positive aspects of religion (mainly christianity); old WCG/COG's tends to accentuate the negative aspects: "don't touch, don't eat, don't drink, thou shall not, no Christmas etc.."speakerboxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-47037489596304330562009-08-07T01:24:40.342+12:002009-08-07T01:24:40.342+12:00Speakerbox,
Thanks for that reply! It was the mo...Speakerbox,<br /><br />Thanks for that reply! It was the most reasonable reply I've received in a long while. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page, except that we differ in one major respect. You say "I find the bible to be the most consistent with my observations regarding human nature and relationships; and it fits with my expectation/understanding (reason) of what life should be like" I have come to a different conclusion.<br /><br />Part of the problem may be that I come from a WCG background, where the bible was considered god-inspired and infallible. The transition out of this background was gradual and painful. At some point, I got past questioning church doctrines and began to question the bible itself. Well, as you may know, an honest reading of the bible can only lead to the conclusion that it is not infallible and not god-inspired.<br /><br />However, there are many "good" parts of the bible, which are an excellent guide to proper human relationships. If one picks out the good parts, and updates them for what we've learned over the past 2,000 years, that could be a good religion. And, in fact, that seems to be what many modern churches try to do.<br /><br />I don't reject religion per say. I think it can be a good thing for lots of people. There are churches who aren't entrenched in a mindset of "the bible is god's infallible communication to mankind", and who have adapted to the modern age. I have no quarrel with these churches.<br /><br />I still think they should pay taxes the same as everyone else, though. The idea of churches being tax-exempt is just plain wrong.<br /><br />The SkepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-36456784790811074202009-08-06T09:20:45.868+12:002009-08-06T09:20:45.868+12:00Dear Skeptic…you have some great points. I teach p...Dear Skeptic…you have some great points. I teach psychology and on the very first day of class I point out to the students that college will challenge their belief system (that’s just part of the college experience); but I encourage them not to fall into a “faith vs. science” mindset, because it, in many ways, is a false choice. <br /><br />Psychologically speaking, there are 3 modes (or types) of knowledge systems: Science (which is based on observation - empiricism), Reason (which is based on what “makes sense” - philosophy) and Religion (which is based on “what feels right” – faith). The interesting thing about these three knowledge systems (and the reason why faith vs science is a false choice) is that each knowledge system contains elements of the other two knowledge systems. <br /><br />Science (empiricism) contains elements of faith: faith in one’s methods, faith in one’s observations, and faith in the work that preceded your own. <br />Science also contains elements of reason: if your observations do not “make sense,” then you’ve probably done your experiments and what-not incorrectly and if your data does not fit with an accepted theory, then you have no way to explain the data.<br /> <br />Reason (philosophy) contains elements of empiricism: no matter how well-reasoned an argument or idea may be, if it cannot be observed, then it will always be suspect. Reason also contains elements of faith: namely, faith in your own ability to figure out the nature of existence and the meaning of life (that’s why philosophers are usually arrogant snobs – they believe they are smart enough to figure this all out).<br /><br />Faith (religion) contains elements of reason: a great deal of what the Bible (and Koran etc.) have to say is very reasonable, and makes sense (love your neighbor, do unto others etc). Faith also contains elements of empiricism: if you do unto others as you’d have done unto you, then it works out pretty well for you and society in general (the norm of reciprocity).<br /><br />My point here, is that the three are not mutually exclusive: there is more than enough “room” for all three in a persons life; indeed, people of faith have been found to live longer, have happier marriages, better adjusted kids, etc . <br /><br />How do I decide in whom to have faith? On one level, it’s a matter of parsing out the religious texts (and the various interpretations) with observation and reason. <br /><br />Sometimes it’s easy: the Mayans thought the sun wouldn’t rise the next day without a human sacrifice. Well, they didn’t sacrifice anyone yesterday; the sun came up today…so they are out of the running. I will not be a Mayan Sun worshipper anytime soon!<br /><br />All major religions have an explanation for creation, and none of them really fit with current scientific theories. So, if you discount creation explanations across the board, I find the bible to be the most consistent with my observations regarding human nature and relationships; and it fits with my expectation/understanding (reason) of what life should be like (especially the New Testament, which tends to emphasize forgiveness and love, both for self and others). <br /><br />As I mentioned in the previous post, however, faith and science ARE two different things (although they contain elements of the other in each) and ultimately, one does have to make a “leap of faith.” How do I choose which religion? I could ask, “how do you choose whom to marry?” Ultimately, you have to say that it just feels right and makes sense. <br /><br />BTW: there’s a very good book called “Psychology Through the Eyes of Faith” by David Myers, a well respected social psychologist. It’s a pretty good read and you can get it here (http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Through-Faith-David-Myers/dp/0060655577) if you’re interested.speakerboxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-77311507974926808692009-08-06T01:04:52.715+12:002009-08-06T01:04:52.715+12:00Ah yes, faith. A very clever strategy by the writ...Ah yes, faith. A very clever strategy by the writers of the bible, and all religious proponents ever since. They can't prove their claims, the evidence don't support their claims. What to do? <br /><br />I've got it! Faith! Let's make it "Holy" to believe what we say without evidence. Let's make it "Unholy" to ask for evidence. Do you think anyone will fall for it?<br /><br />Yes, I am skeptical. I base my understanding of the world upon observation. I admit it. <br /><br />Revealed knowledge? Revealed by whom? The Maharaj Ji claims to reveal knowledge. So does Reverend Moon. So did Mohammed. And Krishna. And Christ. <br /><br />Faith? Each of these asks for, nay demands, your faith. And countless more like them. How do you decide in whom to have faith? (I'll bet you include evidence in your answer).<br /><br />I don't have a difficult task: I feel no need to prove that God does not exist. Perhaps a being or beings more powerful than humans do exist, and perhaps they had a hand in creating our universe. I don't know. I don't see how I could know. And I'm comfortable with not knowing.<br /><br />What I DO know is this. The universe was not created in the manner described in the bible and it was not created by the being the bible calls "God". THAT is easy to prove.<br /><br />The SkepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-20999486454493614932009-08-05T07:21:37.703+12:002009-08-05T07:21:37.703+12:00Dear Skeptic....the "prove all things" w...Dear Skeptic....the "prove all things" was mainly a pun directed at Larry, but.... to answer your question, I can't scientifically prove that God exists because science is based upon empiricism, which is based upon observation, whereas faith is based on revealed knowledge. <br /><br />By definition, science and faith are not the same thing. I cannot prove an article of faith, else if I could, then it would cease to be an article of faith. The bible says that we are saved by faith and that faith is the subject/object of things not seen...i have often wondered if faith would exist (thereby salvation) if the 1st chapter of Genesis would have started out " in the begining all matter and energy in the universe was contained in one singularity, and then there was the big bang, and billions of years later galatic dust created the sun etc etc..." My point being...if the Genesis account fit with our modern day scientific observations, then faith would not be an issue. Those same "stone aged" people would have seemed very advanced. <br /><br />Atheists, however, have a more difficult task: one can't prove a negative, e.g. one can't prove that God does not exist. I think the COG's have some serious problems....but i don't doubt that there is something greater than myself and I am not so egotistical to think (as some do) that I am smart enough to figure the meaning of life and the nature of existence. <br /><br />I think Jesus stated it quite well: love God and love your neighbor. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.Speakerboxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-25706943260196148542009-08-05T01:18:23.552+12:002009-08-05T01:18:23.552+12:00"God is a personal God, who seeks companionsh..."God is a personal God, who seeks companionship with every individual on earth. A unique, special relationship..."<br /><br />If God's seeking a special relationship, he's not very good at it - we receive no communication ever from God, in any form. All we have is a book written by stone-age, bronze-age and iron-age men, to which you ascribe infalliblity. And we have the random occurences of every day life; you ignore the unfavorable ones, while you ascribe the favorable ones to God's intervention.<br /><br />"Prove all things."<br /><br />Yes, please do.<br /><br />The SkepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-12608863468481561462009-08-04T11:21:53.504+12:002009-08-04T11:21:53.504+12:00Larry.... with the names you listed (Moses etc), t...Larry.... with the names you listed (Moses etc), there was often (always?) some supernatural manifestation of power..plagues, fire from the sky, victory over armies etc.....not the division, controversy, abuses of power etc that we often see in some of the COG's. The sad thing is that sometimes ex-COG'ers, who are abused in some way by egotistic leaders, reject God altogether. God is a personal God, who seeks companionship with every individual on earth. A unique, special relationship that is not, and cannot be defined by a self-proclaimed leader. Prove all things.Speakerboxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-33529051197064406822009-08-04T02:39:22.332+12:002009-08-04T02:39:22.332+12:00Larry,
Interesting evidence you offer for your im...Larry,<br /><br />Interesting evidence you offer for your imaginary access to your imaginary friend. <br /><br />I admit, I have often wondered about the source of the "awesome wisdom" that you demonstrate here on this board! Now it all makes sense to me - no source at all for no wisdom at all, LOL.<br /><br />The SkepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-82668063533420287832009-08-03T11:13:00.448+12:002009-08-03T11:13:00.448+12:00"Democracy is fine for government, but doesn’...<em>"Democracy is fine for government, but doesn’t seem to be the way that God works in His church."</em><br /><br />I thought WCG/GCI allowed voting now? Would explain a lot, if it's still banned, like why Junior is still in power when he was supposed to given up that ghost in 1998. (Read the quote on the sidebar at Stan's blog if you don't believe me.)<br /><br />-PHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-18786708495625876242009-08-03T06:59:05.271+12:002009-08-03T06:59:05.271+12:00And Skeptic....
Yes, I/we do have access to God. ...And Skeptic....<br /><br />Yes, I/we do have access to God. He is the source of the awesome wisdom that I demonstrate here for you on this board somewhat regularly. Make a note.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-71515572110192811522009-08-03T06:55:18.091+12:002009-08-03T06:55:18.091+12:00Well Ned, we do indeed have a problem then. Becaus...Well Ned, we do indeed have a problem then. Because, historically (1) is the way that the proper leaders of God’s people have always been selected. And, it hasn’t always been pretty either. Leaders have come to the position a variety of ways, often reluctantly, but election by the people isn’t one of them. Democracy is fine for government, but doesn’t seem to be the way that God works in His church.<br /><br />Please consider Moses, Peter, Paul, Samuel, Joseph, Solomon, David. All were selected by God, and were good leaders. NONE would have ever been elected by the people because they all had obvious flaws.<br /><br />Now consider those that the “people” wanted: Saul, Absalom, Jeroboam. Need I say more?<br /><br />What is the solution? Have faith, and be very skeptical of those who actively seek the top positions and/or proclaim themselves to be the leader because of their inherent talent, favor, or superiority.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-38706471402979991272009-08-03T03:11:20.964+12:002009-08-03T03:11:20.964+12:00These guys actually think they have access to God....These guys actually think they have access to God. Incredible.<br /><br />The SkepticAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-30618390124797996922009-08-02T18:36:20.353+12:002009-08-02T18:36:20.353+12:00Larry, let's take the heat out of this discuss...Larry, let's take the heat out of this discussion; here is what it comes down to:<br /><br />(1) God chooses the leaders, OR<br />(2) The people of God choose the leaders<br /><br />You say (1), I say (2)<br /><br />If it's (1) then we have a problem. There is more than one leader, and they all seem to think God tapped them on the shoulder: Tkach, Meredith, Flurry, Pack...<br /><br />If it's (2) then there's a different scenario. Yes, a leader like Joe Tkach is certainly accountable to God, <b>but that line of accountability goes through the members he serves</b>.<br /><br />In the tradition I'm now familiar with, a congregation calls (invites) a minister, who may either accept or decline. Church delegates meet annually to debate and vote on remits. The church president is elected at the conference. It's a system that works well (though obviously no system is perfect) and has stood the test of time over many decades and in many countries. Basic doctrine was settled long, long ago, so that's not in contention - but how it's understood and administered is vigorously debated.<br /><br />That's the practical part of "the priesthood of ALL believers."<br /><br />No church leader has a direct phone-line to God over and above what any Christian has. None has got to their position by divine selection.Nednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-27872353295682472812009-08-02T11:12:03.048+12:002009-08-02T11:12:03.048+12:00"However, it is NOT my responsibility to dema..."However, it is NOT my responsibility to demand accountability from them! That is just not Biblical."<br /><br />On behalf of cult leaders and despots around the world, thanks for checking your brain at the door. If it wasn't for such mindless obediance, HWA would have never made a dime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-23230615306836715792009-08-02T09:52:55.117+12:002009-08-02T09:52:55.117+12:00This is another indicator to me as to how much pow...This is another indicator to me as to how much power and influence Aaron Dean has.<br /><br />United is going to change and i dont think it`s for the better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-72298122064927356002009-08-02T07:04:20.599+12:002009-08-02T07:04:20.599+12:00Anonymous (Sat Aug 01, 02:23:00 PM) said...
It sh...Anonymous (Sat Aug 01, 02:23:00 PM) said... <br />It should be noted that these two men, Ck and RT, did not choose to fulfill their term commitment and have stepped down. This is a first in UCG. The other men such as Joel Meeker and Doug Horchak did complete their terms, they just choose to not run again. That is a big difference!<br /><br />Anonymous, whoever you are – just check your facts before you make statements like that. Both Joel Meeker and Doug Horchak have resigned in the past, and NOT fulfilled there term commitment.<br /><br />Joel Meeker <br /><br />http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue121/unexpected-resignation-alters-ucg-council.html<br /><br />“MILFORD, Ohio--Joel Meeker, an elder in the United Church of God and member of the UCG's governing body, the council of elders, resigned his seat on the 12-man board in a letter to church president Clyde Kilough dated July 25, 2007.<br />Filling the vacancy is Leon Walker of Big Sandy, Texas, who in May had lost his bid for reelection to the council.”<br /><br />While Doug Horchak did step down in 2005, at the end of his term, what I had in mind was an earlier occasion, in 1997.<br /><br />http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue88/franks.html<br /><br />“In June 1997 The Journal reported the announcement that Doug Horchak would resign from the council and that Les McCullough would replace him.”<br /><br />I don’t know why people don’t check the facts before they make misleading, inaccurate statements. It’s so easy to check these days with internet access.<br /><br />I think there were a couple of other occurrences, but I will let ‘Anonymous’ check that out!Questerukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06659962107808147107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-87555637411836245262009-08-02T05:10:47.269+12:002009-08-02T05:10:47.269+12:00At least, "personal reasons" covers lots...At least, "personal reasons" covers lots of territory.<br /><br />When Ron Dart split from GTA's dealie, he gave 'heart problems' as being the reason.<br /><br />Being that specific made it obvious that Dart's given reason was as unreal as the fake hair on his head, since Dart resigned at the very moment when video of GTA prancing around naked while masturbating and grabbing at his therapist's breasts was about to be broadcast internationally.Melnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-24205221011518047372009-08-02T02:46:28.533+12:002009-08-02T02:46:28.533+12:00"this is a first in UCG. The other men such a..."this is a first in UCG. The other men such as Joel Meeker and Doug Horchak did complete their terms, they just choose to not run again. That is a big difference!"<br /><br /><br />Actually Joel Meeker resigned from the Council without finishing his term just after being elected on the council so that Leon Walker could re-join the council. Leon Walker did not get re-elected on to the council and Joel deferred his position on the council to Leon Walker who was next in-line to be on the council if there were to be resignation from a council member who represented the International area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-43583740954414831382009-08-02T00:31:01.323+12:002009-08-02T00:31:01.323+12:00Ned, that is absolute BULL!
You are right in one ...Ned, that is absolute BULL!<br /><br />You are right in one respect. I DO have access and accountability to God and I do take that seriously. From my limited interaction with Tkach and Feazell, I am fairly certain that they do also.<br /><br />However, it is NOT my responsibility to demand accountability from them! That is just not Biblical. I am certainly open to hearing your argument, but I am unaware of any historical incidence where the leadership was instructed by God to be accountable to the membership. In virtually all situations where "democracy" prevailed in the decision making, either in Israel or the Church, the majority chose poorly. What does that tell you?<br /><br />It is God's responsibility to hold leaders accountable, and I am certain that He does not need my help.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-41180406798834027832009-08-02T00:04:12.887+12:002009-08-02T00:04:12.887+12:00Larry wrote: "Well Ned, this is where you and...Larry wrote: "Well Ned, this is where you and I part company. I prefer someone who considers him/herself directly accountable to GOD. This is far more important, both to me and to...God."<br /><br />Earth calling Larry, we are ALL accountable to God. Not just Joe and Mike. As YOU are accountable to God, you have the <b>responsibility</b> to demand accountability of those in leadership roles. If they are genuine Christian leaders they will WILLINGLY accept that accountability.<br /><br />It may come as news to you Larry, but Joe and Mike have no greater access to God than you do. You are simply throwing your hands up in the air and abdicating personal responsibility. That makes you complicit in their game-playing.Nednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-57474618141098939492009-08-01T23:48:17.928+12:002009-08-01T23:48:17.928+12:00I am not a fan of UCG, but would like to note one ...I am not a fan of UCG, but would like to note one thing...both men say they resigned due to personal reasons...maybe that is the whole of it. I have not seen one person mention that Richard Thompson's wife died a while back...perhaps he truly is resigning due to personal reasons. At least it is a possibility. <br /><br />I WILL be curious to see who takes their places. <br /><br />So far I haven't heard AS FACT that they resigned for any other reason. And I am only interested in FACTS.<br /><br />SueSuenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-69251605577467692572009-08-01T23:40:05.311+12:002009-08-01T23:40:05.311+12:00Part 2
Both men have served faithfully and well o...Part 2<br /><br />Both men have served faithfully and well on the Council in a multitude of responsibilities. There is no question that they have made and will continue to make important contributions to the work of the Church. Both contributed directly to the development of the Church’s strategic planning process, and that plan will go forward.<br /><br />Knowing firsthand of the workload and commitment required to serve on the Council, we respect both their past contributions and their current decisions to step away and focus on other duties within the Church.<br /><br />A natural question now arises: Who will replace them in the now-open positions on the Council? Thankfully, the United Church of God has an orderly process in place for such an occasion. The Church’s Bylaws stipulate that the next in line (as selected in the last General Conference of Elders’ ballot) be notified of their opportunity to serve. Given the weighty responsibilities that a Council member bears, it is logical that time be allowed for the potential new members to consider this new role before they agree to accept. This process is now being followed.<br /><br />This is not the first time a Council member has resigned while still serving a term, and the orderly process of bringing in a new member has worked well. We believe that this time will be no different.<br /><br />I should also point out that it was the Council’s original intent to announce both the resignations of the two men and the two new Council members at the same time. To rightly accommodate the required and wise process of notification and reflection by the potential new members, the Council thought it best to openly communicate these changes in a timely manner. It is said that nature abhors a vacuum, and I have found that the same can be true of speculative comments filling an information void. Hence this communication to you now.<br /><br />For those of you who follow the Council reports, I might point out that the Council reporter was unaware of the resignations when he prepared the traditional report earlier this week. In his official report, he thus erroneously (albeit honestly in the absence of the current information) listed the two former Council members as not being in attendance. That honest error will be corrected.<br /><br />I am personally grateful that the Church has in place an orderly process that addresses developments such as these. The United Church of God is growing and we will continue to execute on the formal Strategic Plan to which so many have made worthy contributions. We will notify you of the new Council members once the process is complete and they are confirmed. You of course are welcome to share news of this development with our members.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br /><br />Roy Holladay<br /><br /> <br />© 2009 United Church of God, an International AssociationSuenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-65204630944036007302009-08-01T23:39:29.545+12:002009-08-01T23:39:29.545+12:00Part 1
United Church of God, an International Ass...Part 1<br /><br />United Church of God, an International Association<br />Letter from the Chairman, Council of Elders<br />July 31, 2009<br /> <br /><br />Dear Fellow Elders,<br /><br />Serving on the Council of Elders represents a high-profile responsibility that is demanding and rewarding at the same time. This responsibility is demanding in the sense that most of our Council members are also church pastors or work full-time in other positions, which makes additional demands on a Council member’s limited time. It is rewarding in the fact that we on the Council have a humbling opportunity to render service in a unique way.<br /><br />As a result of the last General Conference of Elders annual meeting, the Council has undergone some changes with new members being added. After serving on the Council for the previous two years, I was named as the Council’s new chairman. It is in that role as chairman that I am writing to you to openly inform you of two additional changes.<br /><br />Effective Monday, July 27, Richard Thompson resigned from the Council for personal reasons. On Tuesday, July 28, Clyde Kilough, who of course serves as the president of the United Church of God, resigned from the Council for personal reasons. Clyde will continue in his role as president, and Richard will continue serving as a pastor for the United Church of God and as a member of the Church’s Ministerial Services Team.Suenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-87183124938792228562009-08-01T23:37:58.335+12:002009-08-01T23:37:58.335+12:00Well Ned, this is where you and I part company. I ...Well Ned, this is where you and I part company. I prefer someone who considers him/herself directly accountable to GOD. This is far more important, both to me and to...God.<br /><br />As for the Southern Baptists: because of their organizational structure and the fact that their leadership is accountable to the membership, that organization is rife with dissent and factions. They have all kinds of problems. Bad example.larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11207263922457941293noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28426681.post-12351452831819179872009-08-01T18:50:15.499+12:002009-08-01T18:50:15.499+12:00This just in!
Mr Weasel has been given the ultimat...This just in!<br />Mr Weasel has been given the ultimate gift!<br />Junior the Pirate found Stan Rader's old sunglasses amongst his buried treasure and has <a href="http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u296/Tweetybob/weasel.gif" rel="nofollow">let Mr Weasel wear them!</a>Melnoreply@blogger.com