by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals
HIYA, apple78! Haven't seen you around in a while.
It is there. It may be getting a LOT more traffic than they are accustomed to. I wonder if the guys in the server room know why it is getting so many hits. I'm sure the Bethel heavies know by now, but the info takes a while to trickle down. There is always concern that someone may ... "become distressed" ... by this sort of thing, so information is guarded as much as seems reasonable.
Hee-hee! I can imagine the confusion...
AuldSoul
apple78 "i just tried to view their blood info on their website and it has errors and won't open. coincidence? or are too many of us trying to do the same thing, i'm not very technical."
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm Mine worked.
What minimus is saying is what I have been thinking as well. If we focus on the mealy-mouthed ways of the GB and its Service and Writing Departments, it will be almost impossible for many r&f to deny it. Maybe not right away, but have you ever caught someone in a lie? The way they squirm and try to rationalize? They end up tripping up over their own words, given enough time to ramble. When r&f see that that it may become a lot harder to dismiss it. Even if they say "No comment," eventually they will have to say something. Or else start changing doctrines in a massive way. And that may very well matter. Even if not in a court of law, then perhaps in the court of public opinion.
LOL - and overwhelming evidence convicted OJ Simpson too. NOT.
Auld....I asked you on a different thread, whereby you did not answer my question. You have hammered away, over and over again about legal certainty, how the law should be applied, how a judge will interpret this, what this means, etc.... Yet you should know there is no such thing as legal certainty. It really does boil down to what a judge says....and possibly what a jury might think. You have poo poo'ed the attorneys that have actually commented on this. Specifically you disagreed with Oronbus.....a BAR admitted lawyer. What are your credentials? Have you attended law school? Did you graduate? Are you a member of the BAR? Since you are represeting yourself as an expert I think it only fair to know your credentials.
I've had a trial attorney that is a friend of mine that is certified to litigate within the federal courts look at this. He said it "was an interesting theory" and it is "next to impossible to know what a judge would say about this application". His original impression was "this is by no means a silver bullet". He did say that this information "probably would strengthen a good case already" however.
So Auld.....what are your credentials?
Well, perhaps I'm wrong, but couldn't doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and other damaged parties due to involvement in past no blood issues sue the WTS? If they gave blood and were sued by the family or if they didn't give blood and were sued by other parties wouldn't they have legal standing in this case?If that's true then it's not necessary to worry about current dubs. What with WTS' attrition rate we could just stop the influx of new ones in the developed world and put them out of business.
No, you're not wrong - your points above are exactly what this is all about.
Enigma One,
I poo'ed the opinion of an attorney who later admitted that he wrote it in haste, mangled his argument, and who wrote in the brief treatment of the case that he had not read the opinion. Yet, he offered an opinion on it, as though his opinion based on conjecture from three excerpts of a 38 PAGE opinion means squat.
I am certain, from his lackluster opinion and gross lack of knowledge on the matter he was commenting on, his field of law does not brush against tort law as applied to religion, whereas the student who wrote the piece is specializing in that niche and attends a school that is wonderfully suited to that pursuit of law.
Her paper was published in one of the most well regarded of the four journals that specialize in this area of law (probably the second most well regarded) and, contrary to the claims of the estimable Eduardo, underwent much more severe scrutiny prior to publication because she was a student. However, his ignorance on that topic is understandable given that he admits to never having been published.
He also linked to a Web site that purports to rank journals by impact, yet on closer inspection the Web site itself cautions against weighing its ranking system as accurate. The Web site he linked to stated that the best way to find out how a specific journal is viewed is to compare it to other similar journals. He failed to do so and his subsequent judgment and report on the quality of the journal was exactly what the Web site indicated one would arrive at, erroneous.
He was hasty, rash, and weakened his own credibility by failing to properly communicate the intent of "recklessness" as it pertains to misrepresentation. My credential in shredding his ill-informed and error-filled treatment of his own analogy regarding misrepresentation as it relates to the lemon laws is that I have personally EXPERIENCED that scenario and successfully pressed it through court.
Now, given that reality—i.e. that I know how the law interprets "recklessness" from first hand experience—as well as his other grossly inaccurate, hasty, and ill-informed conclusions pertinent to his "poo'ing" of this opinion, I find that his opinion is very probably like his posts in other respects: unprofessional, discourteous, poorly timed, and grossly flawed.
Read this thread again: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/103682/1.ashx
3. I would consider it as helping to IMPROVE the religion that I cherish as the faith of my youth
Tell me, do you think he might be biased? I certainly would never claim that this religion is a cherished memory of my youth. Neither would I happily tear down the hopes of those who would attempt to use this tool. He is feeding into what you want to believe. Go for it. It won't change the outcome, really.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
OIL AND BLOOD
Free Market News Network, FL - 20 minutes ago
Imagine that an emergency made the need for blood transfusions especially urgent but Jehovah Witnesses were in charge. That’s ...
OIL AND BLOOD
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Imagine that an emergency made the need for blood transfusions especially urgent but Jehovah Witnesses were in charge. That’s what we are experiencing now, only not with blood but oil supply. In that case the Jehovah Witnesses are the environmentalists.
Jehovah Witnesses are often very nice people, certainly well mannered and often dressed spiffily. But their idea on the merits of blood transfusions is really, really perverse, like the ideas of Christian Scientists on seeking the help of physicians when one’s body is ailing. I am sorry but this is just so. Sure, so long as it pertains to them and they aren’t forcing their views on anyone else, I can live with both, although when either of them inflicts these views on their own children, I get very worried. Children are dependents, not yet of age so as to figure out what’s best, and when they are subjected to parents’ peculiar religious or any other sort of notions, especially ones that can kill them, it’s time to call in the trial lawyers, I say. They are injuring, even killing kids, with ideas the kids never had a chance to consider and decide about.
But never mind that. It is with the environmentalists’ impact on public policy that I am concerned. The country has been terribly dependent on imported oil and that would not be so bad if the oil were owned by reasonable people abroad, people who, like reason would guide one to do, wished to earn a decent living off their good fortune and hard work. That would make for healthy trade between, say, the oil rich Saudi Arabians or Venezuelans and the rest of the world.
Sadly, however, as things are, the oil abroad is under the control of a bunch of rouge states that (a) use it to make the population addicted to free lunches that can only last so long and (b) play geopolitical games instead of conduct trade with people outside their borders. This makes it especially crucial that the rest of the world institute rational economic policies when it comes to oil exploration, extraction and refinement.
No, of course oil will not last forever. But it could do us a lot more good without irrational restraint of production and trade that’s often brought about by the irrational exuberance of too many environmentalists who haven’t found an oil rig they didn’t hate or an oil refinery they didn’t want to ban.
Even in a time of emergency, such as many Americans had and are still reeling from involving the hurricanes, instead of retreating in shame of how little they care about human well-being, both the environmentalists and their political pawns in Washington prefer dragging a bunch of oil company executives in front of pontificating Congressional committees and subjecting them to various attempts to humiliation, as if their duties were first to appease the politicos rather than enrich all those who own oil stocks (which, by the way, includes millions of people who are far from “fat cats,” whoever that insulting term is supposed to refer to).
Oh, yes, about that gauging issue—no doubt some folks love to exploit other people’s dire needs, but it is simply impossible to know from afar who is doing this as opposed to taking reasonable advantage of having prudently saved up (horded) resources while others gave not a fig about a rainy day. If one thinks charging high prices for goods and services in short supply is a bad thing, we might as well shut down all labor unions which flourish by advocating that policy, or doctors who actually live by it (given how they are mostly needed and diligently charge for this when their patients are in dire need of their expertise).
Anyway, I look at environmental opposition to oil exploration in, say, Alaska, or offshore, or anywhere, as rank obstructionism and the cause of much misery, especially to those who can least afford or cope with it. This is just what you get when people’s value systems have become so warped that they are willing to put trees, snail darters, and rare frogs ahead of human lives and well-being on their list of priorities. But, like the Jehovah Witnesses or Christian Scientists, if they do it to themselves, that can only be argued with in a free country. But if they inflict their perverse notions on us all, they should be stopped.
Auld.....So I ask yet again....a 3rd time....what are YOUR credentials? I don't need a diatribe on some other posters opinion......what are your qualifications to be making these statements?
Enigma One,
My qualifications are: (1) I was able to find blatant flaws in his expressions regarding a very simple point of law by indicating "with recklessness" has to with the manner of commission instead of with the lack of regard for consequence; (2) I can tell when a pro-JW is at work (I have Spidey-sense when it comes to bullsh**); (3) I have a brain and have studied law as a hobby for years; (4) I have watched applied law with great interest, and studied the history of its shifts; (5) I know that knowledge does not come from titles.
Aside from that, what credentials should I have to speak about this? Many attorneys on the Watchtower payroll have better credentials than Eduardo, some of them have even been published in the same no-account, worthless, trash journal this student's paper was published in. Does that mean their opinion on every point of law has more weight?
Your "startling" revelation about no one knowing how a Judge or jury will view this opinion is obvious to anyone. I am surprised you felt the need to ask. However, what this will do is provide merit for HEARING cases that previously would not even GET before a judge or jury. It is a theory that WILL be tested in court, not in a forum on the Web.
Would it make you more comfortable to know that I am an attorney? If so, why? Is your discomfort with my arguments? What point do you take issue with, and why?
See, this is not a professional forum, this is a discussion forum. I prefer to consider and respond to arguments based on their merit rather than based on the titles at the end of their names. I know carpenter's who are geniuses and Professors who have modest intellect. I know a plumber who could most a run for their money on matters of law and a janitor who is a theoretical physicist. While you might consider it unfair that you don't know what I do for a living, I suppose you will have to find a way to cope with your ignorance of my life.
I have an expression I use frequently. It is one you may benefit from in not getting to hot and bothered by people defending their own opinions or shredding the opinions of others:
Opinions should always be valued at the recipient's discretion.
But, that is just my opinion.
AuldSoul
Interesting quote taken from the thread about transplants -it's from a Questions from Readers;
It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint.
If they'd kept to that, the misrepresentation over blood wouldn't touch them. But with regard to blood they HAVE decided whether such a procedure is advisable or warranted from a medical standpoint.
This is usable in court in a misrepresntation of secular facts case. It shows that the Organisation WHILST KNOWING THEIR COMPETENCE WAS LIMITED still passed judgement on matters of medical advisability. They can't claim they didn't know they weren't competent, they've admitted it in their own publications
