To all snipers and bombers

by Norm 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  hillary_step

  Thank You Norm,

  For your comments and your noted thought:

  I would guess that’s individual. Some blame the Watchtower Society leaders others both the leaders and the R&F. The Watchtower Society would of course be nothing without the R&F Witnesses,

  This is very much at the crux of my question which just for the drawing of focus to the issue with more accuracy I will quote again:

  My question? Why do some of us attack JW’s as people and who are our real targets?

  Like Alan in his post which thankfully dealt with the question at hand he said that he felt the reasons to be 'mixed', somewhat agreeing with your your own estimation, which of course makes much sense.

  At the basis of how we can feel justified ethically in attacking in the R&F ( I am NOT talking about attacks on them on this Board ) seems to be the accountability that we feel they have, for propagating a falsehood which damages and blights peoples lives.

  My own worry with the scenario of attacking the R&F is that we all understand and agree that they have gone through an extremely honed long term, intense process of brainwashing, imho far more deep reaching and subtle and refined than that of the crude Nazi propaganada machine. At what stage can we judge them victims or victimisers? What also has to be taken into account is that perhaps owing to the fact that the GB are largely protected from interaction with individual EXJW's, the next best target is the individual JW and we attack them, in my opinion a largely futile and counterproductive action.

  My own position is that I hold no malevolance toward any individual JW, even those that have treated me scurriously and with evil intent. I may not like many of them personally, but that is not the issue here. I cannot say at what stage they are acting from their own motives or from programmed ones and as such will not judge them.

  The leadership however, all of whom are well aware of what they are doing, and here I speak of the few dozen men responsible for keeping the ship afloat, are a different issue. Though none have treated me with contempt personally, I hold them responsible and thus all my efforts are targeted toward them.

  Again, thanks for your comments Norm - HS
• 

  jst2laws

  Good morning Norm,
  quote: "Well, as far as I remember many Jehovah's Witnesses was really eagerly looking forward to the slaughter of all those pesky people who shut the doors in their faces. Many a Jehovah's Witness I knew waxed very eloquent on that subject. They didn’t spare much patience for their religious opponents when it came to ridiculing their religious beliefs. So I don’t think they are such frail flowers as you make them out to be."
  
  You are right. They do this with smug arrogance. They really believe it. But this does not demonstrate that as individuals they are not fragile. They are like the little dog that barks when the master is near but runs with their tail tucked under when on their own. Their power and confidence is only as a part of this worldwide machine that has God's backing.

  It is my opinion that even for the witness who has doubts when he engages in a discussion with someone who is attacking his organization he will feel a measure of insecurity. Even while defending the organization he is not defending wrongdoing but hanging onto his source of security.

  quote: "This organization has managed to con millions of extremely ignorant people into believing that they are well informed and knowledgeable just because they read the Watchtower and Awake! It is quite a feat to make people to be actually proud of their ignorance even to the point that they flaunt it like profound knowledge. It takes a saint-like person to be calm and kind when you have such people showing up and arrogantly flaunt such stupidity."

  Good. So we are dealing with "con"ed, "ignorant" people. At least once indoctrinated some have acted like 'ignorant' people. Yet we are hoping to reach a few brave, honest, thinking individuals in this world pond. Its the scum at the top of the pond that keeps the light from shining through. Is that not what we should "target"? The research you and a few other pillars on the board have offered us is priceless and often should be presented with less than "saint-like" calmness, if directed at the deserving scum at the top.

  But I, having recently broken the leash, can clearly remember what it was like to step into this street with the big dogs knowing my master would kick me for leaving the yard. We should remember how scary that can be even if we seem to be dealing with a pesky barking dog. As HS said, 'is this a victim or a victimizer'?

  Jst2laws
• 

  jst2laws

  HS,

  Qoute:
  "I hold no malevolance toward anyindividual JW, even those that have treated me scurriously and with evil intent. I may not like many of personally, but that is not the issue here. I cannot say at what stage they are acting from their own motives or from programmed ones and as such will not judge them."

  Excellent.

  Jst2laws
• 

  D wiltshire

  Just my .02

  I think it most helpful when someone writes in a style that can be easily understood (that is most important). IMHO
  
  Factual, verifiable, clear, reasonable, and avoidance of overly opionated phrasing, to me are most convincing and helpful.

  Being blunt is fine, but you must make sense, being overly harsh often will make the reader less likely to take our point seriously, feel that we just have an ax to grind and that our reasoning may be tainted and not to be taken seriously.

  I for one find there is a lot of very good thinkers and writers here.
  I've learned a lot from even the severly disgrunted.

  While it always good to make your point without stabbing the other person to death with it, I feel if we don't take ourselves too seriously we can we can even learn from the shall we say, the overly agressive point maker.

  All kind off people come out of the Borg, some with a tremedious chip on their shoulder (can you blame them?). The JW lurker with half a brain must know that, were not all the same, we were just all fooled at one time. And so It's quite normal to expect a variety of personal styles of writting posted here, where there is (thanks to Simom), a healthy freedom of speak.

  I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
• 

  Tina

  Hi wiltshire,
  I agree we can make points being blunt. No one gets overly stabbed here anyway. This thought is begining to take on mythical proportions now by those who want a theocratic format used.I've been around these boards a while now. I fail to see this blanket hatred of JW's that others perceive. Might be better if they re-check that perception.

  As Norm states,it's simply the facts. The facts themselves are upsetting. But do we want to do what the WTS does and 'infantilize' these people? Handling them like stupid children who can't think for themselves? I think not. No one is that ignorant and if they're perusing the boards they already have an idea of what's around.

  I also agree that there are many good writers here. And many diverse styles of communicationg a thought. The same thought will be presented several different ways,one usually gets thru. And that's all that matters.
  Addendum: Norm makes a point I'm in total agreement with. I am not on a 'mission',nor am I a crusader.
  Thanks for the post!(Did I welcome you aboard?) if not,Welcome! regards,tina
• 

  Norm

  TeeJay,

  You said:

  I don't doubt your discovery as I have witnessed it myself. Knowing that is the case, wisdom leads the wise to use a different approach when addressing different people... speak Greek to Greeks, Spanish to Spaniards, etc. Doing otherwise defeats our purpose and those who might otherwise listen to us are likely to turn a deaf ear. When that happens, all loose.
  tj

  Yes, and to idiots speak like an idiot, right? As I have stated before, my involvement in connection with Witnesses has been to provide information for those who’s interested in it. I am not interested in talking to Witnesses who don’t want to talk to me or want any information. I particular I want to stress that I am thus not on a “mission” to the Witnesses. If an adult person want to become and/or remain a Jehovah's Witness that’s perfectly all right with me, I couldn’t care less.

  If anyone don’t like me or my style of presenting information, it will be their problem, not mine, I am me, take it or leave it, frankly I don’t care.

  Norm.
• 

  D wiltshire

  Norm,

  Good points and well taken, you keep your style and call'em as you see them.

  Tina,

  Thanks for the welcome.

  I'll defend your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I beleive it.
• 

  Kent

  As I have stated before, my involvement in connection with Witnesses has been to provide information for those who’s interested in it. I am not interested in talking to Witnesses who don’t want to talk to me or want any information. I particular I want to stress that I am thus not on a “mission” to the Witnesses.

  
  Good point, Norm. It seems it's extremely difficult for some people to grasp that fact, abd you explained it better than me. Let's hope someone gets it this time. :-)

  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
• 

  waiting

  Gee, I don't think your point is hard to grasp, Norm. And Kent has made a good point in that there are different styles. And there certainly are a lot of styles around here, eh?

  It does seem that this forum has been more tolerant lately of newcomers. I think tolerance is a great thing myself - well worth gaining. I have a long way to go, but I appreciate tolerance shown to me - perhaps I can return it to someone else. Just seems the neighborly thing to do, don't you think?

  I think one of the reverses of tolerance is bigotry. Webster's says "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to one's church, party, belief, or opinion."

  Somewhere on the plane between tolerance and bigotry lies a personal style. Myself, I prefer to try to slide towards tolerance. It's just so politically correct nowadays.

  waiting
• 

  teejay

  Norm,

  I particular I want to stress that I am thus not on a ?mission? to the Witnesses. If an adult person want to become and/or remain a Jehovah's Witness that?s perfectly all right with me, I couldn?t care less. If anyone don?t like me or my style of presenting information, it will be their problem, not mine, I am me, take it or leave it, frankly I don?t care.

  I understand. I have no doubt that you have helped some with your methods and approach. By 'helped' I mean led others (either dubs still in or people who never were) to adopt a more fleshed-out understanding of the JW religion.

  My comment was not necessarily directed towards you or meant as an indictment of you or the words you might have used in the past to describe truths relative to the JW movement. I only meant to say that it's my view that to 'help' those who might be offended by 'blunt truth,' another tactic might be better used.

  Sorry if you took offense. None was meant.

  tj

  p.s. Thank you for your comments, kent. They went a long way to clearing up any lingering confusion. They were thoroughly beneficial, as always.