Not quite. The media has run news stories about JW's blood belief ever since the doctrine was adopted by the Society. Also, practically every story about JWs mentions the anti-blood stance.
Oroborus21,
While they routinely mention the anti-blood stance, they don't mention the exceptions to that stance. In the past, media outlets have NOT publicized the JWs blood belief, they have only publicized complete rejection of blood. That is not their belief at all, their belief is much more stupid, hypocritical, and ambiguous than that.
If you read hawkaw's post again, you will (possibly) see that he drew attention to a specific exception. This is the first time any major media outlet had publicized that JWs do NOT reject all blood products. What hawkaw wrote is actually "quite" true.
What you wrote in response to his few short sentences evidences the same degree of comprehension you manifest when tiredly rehashing the merits (or lack thereof) of an untested legal theory which I will leave unnamed. Since you plainly failed to correctly see the significance of one small paragraph of text, I don't see why anyone should have confidence in your ability to correctly discern the impacts or significance of a 38-page legal theory.
If you spend—in the future—half the time you currently take combatting ideas presented by others to try thoroughly understanding what people wrote in the first place, you might find you have much less to combat than you at first believed. Your windmills aren't giants. The giants are getting away while you fend off the windmills, Don Quixote.
AuldSoul
