by thirdwitness 597 Replies latest watchtower scandals
My thoughts as well bad boy, surely there were other places they could go to get access to books instead of the UN??
Do they need books anyway, any quotes I have seen are usually mis-quoted and out of context with no reference so the reader can look them up???
By there acts you shall know them! How true
BM
the whole point is that they, as Thirdwitness has explained, voluntarily associated with the United Nations, and maintained that association for ten years. That is their sin. Everything else is an examination into how deep this sin went.
steve
Thirdwitnoid, use your example except chage 'blockbuster' for 'Gay Porno Goats for Nazi's inc.' Would your conscience still be in the clear?
steve
Steve, do you know if they are offering franchises? LOL at G.P.G.N. inc.
Why is anyone still arguing with this a$$ clown? He lost 10 pages ago! He's just parroting his idiocy over and over let it go...
Thirdwitness,
Your site says this about Mr Hoeffel (the DPI chief):
Of course, now the UN is suddenly being very clear about their requirements — over ten years too late. Therefore it begs the question, why did Mr Hoeffel not make it plain and state that the 1991 forms did not include such requirements? We wonder if the DPI is trying to cover-up their own ineptness for not putting such a statement on the original form when it, perhaps, should have been. The chief of the DPI is being misleading — either by intentionally trying to cover his department's failings or from simply making an honest mistake. He is quoting the then-current 2004 requirements for a DPI NGO. Notice how he fails to say those were the requirements back in the early 1990's. Why does he not make it clear that the original applications said nothing about supporting the UN charter, as we can see for ourselves today? Who really is being untrustworthy and trying to “hide the facts”? Is it the Watchtower Society, whose explanation agrees with the 1991 evidence? Or is it not the DPI, who has wrongly insinuated that the criteria to support the UN as a DPI NGO was on the original application — when we know for a fact that it was not?It continues on in a similar vein.
Did you contact Mr Hoeffel with these questions before publication or have you since? Or, did you decide to attack him publically based on your undestanding of the "evidence" without the courtesy of contacting him?
did you decide to attack him publically based on your undestanding of the "evidence" without the courtesy of contacting him?
I did indeed contact him and many others with the DPI trying to gather information but I never received any different information than what other sites have shown.
mkr,
You are right, it is hard to be impartial on this one, but it is clear Thirdwitness (Or a$$ clown as you put it) has no foundation for his arguement. This thread was over 10 pages ago.
He is quoting the then-current 2004 requirements for a DPI NGO. Notice how he fails to say those were the requirements back in the early 1990's.
Did you ask him about this? You said he's misleading the public. Did you ask him if there was any evidence to show that the requirements had not essentially changed? Or, did you just come up with that conclusion on your own without asking him if they had changed or not?
SO WHAT WERE THOSE OTHER WEBSITES,3W.
Yes, I ask him and the other websites that I refer to are the misleading apostate sites that give false information. For example, some try to say that the WT went thru the review process and provide the accreditation form created after 2001. A form which the WTS never filled out but apostates want to make you think that they did fill it out. Go look for yourself and you will see unless they have changed it because they were caught in a lie or a mistake.
