Kevin Metcalf, JW and counterfeiter

by Kent 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  nelly136

  The item looks the same as it did when I sent it to kent,
  nothing added or changed as far as I can see,
  nelly
• 

  larc

  Mox,

  I am not sure now, what your concern is. Is it Kent's title to the thread, or is it the posting of the news release itself as an inflamatory item that would turn off a JW lurker. Could you please clarify.

  Also, it seems to me that if you have a problem with Kent, that if should be addressed on the original thread, rather than having a spill over to this one. Just my ever so humble thoughts.
• 

  Billygoat

  Quoting Moxy...

  i had this exact experience myself some years ago. i might have been spared much pain otherwise

  I'm reposting something I posted yesterday...

  They attack the person instead of the facts. I've not known Kent that long, but noticed right away his tongue-in-cheek and sometimes downright vulgar humor. I'm sure it shocks the sensibilities (of some whom have already posted above) but they are just like the JW's who won't listen to a message because the delivery doesn't suit their desires. They refuse to get out of the JW mentality that if everything isn't Pollyanna perfect in the delivery, then it must be garbage. Whether there's truth to the message or not doesn't even matter. If someone looks at this site and judges within a few posts/hours/days that things are too volatile here, they they are cowards. They don't want to address the fact that truth sometimes hurts and truth isn't always presented in gold wrapping paper with a tulle ribbon. Anybody with ANY life experience knows that.

  My point being - since when are WE expected to help people make a decision about being a JW or not? Each person much figure that out on their own. I personally don't want the responsibility of it. If I can help that's great, but the person has to be willing to WORK to get the answer.

  Here is another quote I posted earlier today:

  Take posting on this board for example. Kent posts an article with his usual "colorful" style. Yes, they are laced with profanities, BOLD LETTERS, exclamation points and sometimes rudeness. My first question after reading it is, "What is the message? What are the FACTS that he is trying to convey to me?"

  Other questions I ask myself:

  Am I the only one involved in this situation?
  If not, how are others affected?
  What are others reactions to this situation?
  What is their perspective?
  Why are they reacting that way?
  What is in their background to form their opinion?
  Is the delivery of a message skewed because of their personal opinion?
  Does my opinion matter?
  Am I giving it to share a differing perspective or am I doing it just to stir the pot?

  Maybe if people would ask themselves these questions when it comes to ANY situation, they would spare THEMSELVES their own pain. Why rely on others to spare it for them? Jumping to conclusions and forming opinions too quickly always makes people lose out on things!

  Andi

  Edited to add some stuff!
• 

  Moxy

  larc & billygoat:
  sorry if my replies seem to jump around to different points. i think that i was just continuing a line of thought that kismet posted earlier. if you hadnt read that, my point may not have been clear. put simply, my objection is to the headline attached to the PR, "Kevin Metcalf, JW and counterfeiter" - this implies quite strongly that the individual IS a JW, and the article does not support that. he claimed he was, with clear ulterior motives. would i have been happier with the post if the words 'self-proclaimed' or 'alleged' or 'would-be' were added? probably. my questions are basically:

  how would a professional journalist have felt about this headline and why?

  what style of journalism does this more closely resemble?

  and i suppose the bigger questions, which billygoat is getting at, are:
  does it really matter what headline gets attached?

  is the purpose honest reporting or is it attracting readership?

  i agree with billygoat, that we are not expected to help provide answers for anyone. i also personally do not feel that i want that responsibility. but likely some do. if you do maintain a website that reports news, then what is your purpose? how do you feel your style of reporting impacts on that goal?

  im really just asking.

  im sorry that you feel it was my own fault that i did not wade thru the material presented on xjw sites to find the truth for myself sooner than i did. i would have liked it if you might have been more sensitive to the hurt it caused me but that's ok, i dont really want to get into that in detail. people can only read so much of the vast information available to them and JWs have strong motivation to find reason NOT to investigate too far. and in my case, remarkably poor reporting and baseless accusations were more than enough for me for several years. eventually, my desire to find the truth was stronger than my desire to avoid questionable journalism altho i really wish that it hadnt taken that long or been that difficult to find. when you see a headline about the worlds biggest hermaphrodite alien baby, do you pick up the article to find the nugget of truth for yourself or do just keep going thru the checkout line, spending your time on what you judge to be more worthwhile?

  mox
• 

  larc

  Mox,

  I went back to the top and reread the information. I also read the material provided on a link. It is clear that this information was released by the United States Attornies Office and the link is to a Secret Service report. This is a primary source and not a hyped version written in a questionable newspaper.

  Mox,

  When I left there scant sources of information. I found all the proof I needed in the writings of Russell and Rutherford.
• 

  Kent

  how would a professional journalist have felt about this headline and why?

  I am a professional journalist, and an editor as well. As a matter of fact, that's what I do for a living. And I wouldn't feel anything but what I did when I made the headline - it's OK. The reason is simple. This was quoting in length an official document from the Department of Justice - and that's more than enough to avoid any trouble at all.

  I see no ethical reason for adding "self proclaimed". Would I need to write the self proclaimed JW, Milton Henschel? If not, why? The Jehovah's Witnesses don't have any "member records" according to other self proclaimed JWs - among those the self proclaimed JWs in the Norwegian Branch office.

  what style of journalism does this more closely resemble?

  Exact quoting of the source! This was no journalism at all - it was written by an officer of the court - and I made a headline quoting DIRECTLY out of the text. I fail to see the problem.

  is the purpose honest reporting or is it attracting readership?

  Huh? What are you driving at? ME having bad intentions for QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT????

  Tell me, Moxy, what seal is this:

  And this ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS - United States Attorney; Central District of California - is that someone that just issues messages totally unreliable? Or maybe this Thom Mrozek, Public Affairs Officer, is the same kind of croock as the guys in Germany - that altered Rutherfords "original statement" - even though the Watchtower knew that to be a lie (A lie they had to admit later)?

  I'm NOT attacking you here, Moxy. I'm just asking questions. You see, I fail completely in seeing your points. I really don't understand what you object to, based on the source document.

  If I had written that story - that would be something different. THEN I would have to prove my statements. Now I just quoted from an official document.

  Yakki Da

  Kent

  "The only difference between a fool and the JW legal department is that a fool might be sympathetic ."

  Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
  http://watchtower.observer.org
• 

  Francois

  Maybe I'm missing some point here, but anyone who knows anything about JWs knows they have never engaged in any charitable acts of any kind any where. The only charity they have is being charitable to themselves with your money.

  I don't see anything wrong with Kent's headline. It does accurately reflect the facts of the case, so what's wrong with it?

  ft

  NOTE TO GOVERNING BODY: You've been challenged to a debate, boys. Dont you have ANY balls?