by Maximus 80 Replies latest jw friends
Interesting idea, Skally,
Since I don't believe there are many married couples posting, nor are there really *groups* of us......I would suspect that there are a lot of men and women doing research.
It seems that men tend to be the major posters, but then men were the elders and have access to hard paper. As pointed out, most researchers turn their work over to the writers - and it would seem questionable if they kept all their data.
waiting
Hillary:
I'm not going to defend a hate note written by "who"?
But essentially they were offended by what they felt was a betrayal of confidence. Personally, I feel if my wife leaves me she is entitled to tell all the sordid events of our intimate lives to any who may have curiosity. I love when people tell "all". Even though I don't care much about Ray Franz (he benefited from and continues to benefit from his high rank) I enjoy the gossip. I would hope that this board could be flooded with gossip about those in high places.
If that hate note was really writen by a JW it was mostly a wishing of bad luck on Maximus. I prefer Jewish curses. May Maximus inherit a boat-load of gold --- and may it not be enough to pay his hospital bills! (Just kidding)
Maximus "What ever comes out through those gates, we stand a better chance if we work together'"
Keep up the good work their Bud.
I hate it when the Witness's say referring to them self's: Gods organization, come on give me a break any religion can claim that statement upon them self ~ Shane
Proplog2,
You note:
I'm not going to defend a hate note written by "who"?
You then interestingly, go on to do just that!
HS
This is really funny. The Nethinim thing just didn't make any sense at all. If the writer is such an idiot why don't they retire him to pulling carrots or something he's qualified for?
proplog2 said:
: Once again you take an incident and turn it into a blanket judgement of "all" JW's. This is a serious fallacy.
Once again, proplog2, you demonstrate that you are not competent to understand subtleties of the English language. I nowhere said, nor did I imply, "all". Again you show your bias, which results in your making statements that show your stupidity or proclivity to lie.
: Alan said: "And some posters don't think JWs are capable of overt killing! LOL!" The implication here is that ALL JW's are capable of killing.
Wrong. That kind of language -- without use of qualifiers -- is meant to avoid an implication of quantity. It is meant to provoke the reader into investigating further and making his or her own conclusions about quantity. It is a more subtle way of implying the technical definition of "some", but better than using "some" because "some" often carries the implication of "small fraction", even though "some" technically can mean a percentage ranging from 0 to 100. It is apparent that English is not your forte.
: The fact that some people in any population are capable of extreme behavior is hardly worth noting.
Wrong again. In a general population that's correct. But in a population that prides itself on non-violence, and teaches outsiders that one of its most distinguishing characteristics is non-violence, it's very significant.
The fact is that some JWs will resort to violence when they think their religion is being attacked. When James Penton was disfellowshipped in the early 1980s, a reporter came to the Kingdom Hall and waited outside on the sidewalk for the result. He was taking pictures as JWs came out. One JW man told the reporter to go away. Being on public property the reporter refused. The JW attacked him, punching him in the face. The reporter struck back and knocked the JW to the ground. The JW later brought a lawsuit, which he lost because the reporter had witnesses to the attack. You can read about this in the book Crisis of Allegiance by James Beverley, available from Richard Rawe.
Now, proplog2, tell me that it is false that JWs are capable of overt violence. Explain to me why you think it's not an easy step to overt killing -- especially if JWs think their entire way of life is under attack.
AlanF
Oh AlanF,
What do we have here? It is Mr Perfect! If a reporter was at your face because you was a fool to read James Penton book. What would you do? Kiss him or her on their lips.
Alan:
You know as well as I do that the "effect" of the absense of a qualifier is one of the most important tools in the propagandist kit.
Ask an African American about the expression "you people".
"You people" don't want to work. "You people" just want a hand-out.
"You people" isn't "All you people". But the implied "ALL" has the same semantic response.
Those who know how to use the language, like you do, are completely aware of the problem of the implied "all". Ordinary speech is adequate when the consequences are not serious. But when you are criticizing a group of people you ought to be responsible enough to use "exact" language.
Your attempt to brush off your negligence is as I correctly interpreted - part of your viscious stance towards JW's AND your assumption that the audience you are talking to shares your viewpoint.
I will not waste my time pointing out the fine points of general semantics and the tools that lead to sane speech. You know the tools for the language of both science and propaganda. In this case you seem to be determined to be a propagandist. You behave quite a bit like the Watchtower - just the other side of the coin.
Alan:
I thought about your wording:
"And some posters don't think JWs are capable of overt killing! LOL!"
Wouldn't it be less propagandistic (fairer) if you would have written the sentence this way:
"And some posters don't think (A) JW is capable of overt killing!"
Of course if your intentions were to imply that JW's are a murderous group then your choice of words were perfect.
Proplog2, I was quite amazed by your blanket statement that you take exception to Ray Franz as he profited from his endeavours (whatever that may be) by presumingly having written successful books following his departure from one of the places of the hierarchy...
I am a little bit puzzled by your rogue remark, which I personally think reeks of jealousy and an inability to understand one man's viewpoint in its relevant setting....
see also my comments earlier "JW's are like Pharisees"...
:*)
You are the music as long as the music last...............
