by AlanF 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I am sure they will survive without some Messianic figure in Denver to lead them to the promised land.
What?! Isn't this the Promised Land? And aren't Alan, Farkel, and company, our "present truth" Joshua's?
My god! another eye opening post!
Thanks HS!
IW
Hillary_step: So what you are saying is that because AlanF is taken so seriously as a poster, he should be more responsible as to how he chooses to speculate on-line? I think I have read you correctly. I could not disagree more. Though I understand your sentiment, I cannot see that it is condusive to a persons intellectual health.Poor hapless XJW's, who are unable to distinguish right from wrong, and rely on important authority figures to chart their miserable little lives. Most people on this Board have grown up way beyond what you credit them with Dilaceratus. I would not worry about their emotional health, I am sure they will survive without some Messianic figure in Denver to lead them to the promised land.
I do not recall mentioning anyone's emotional or intellectual well-being at all, so that must be something new and irrelevant you have added to your understanding of my post. (Curiously, however, you seem concerned for AlanF's "intellectual health," but feel I should not concern myself with the readers of this message board's "emotional health.")
What I will state more explicitly for those who may have acquired their "basic reading and comprehension skills" rather late in life, is that anyone could post a topic like, "AlanF -- A Racist?" and, short of having some compelling evidence to back up such a claim, would be correctly dismissed as a troll attempting to attach a hateful moniker to an established and respected poster. AlanF can post "Thirdwitness -- An Agent of the Governing Body" and such a suggestion will not be immediately dismissed, but given credence as "not impossible." Despite the fact that this is only AlanF's speculation, and there is no evidence to support this idea, it is now a runmor that has been widely spread about.
Thirdwitness ought to be reviled as a result of his shoddy arguments and ridiculous claims, not because of the unproved perception that he is a Watchtower drone.
Weighing the possibility he is a Watchtower drone is not for the purpose of reviling him. Whether or not he reports to the Watchtower Society, he is (they are) a Watchtower drone(s).
The reviling (such as it is) of thirdwitness is due to his shoddy arguments and ridiculous claims. His shoddy arguments and ridiculous claims are a result of being a Watchower drone, he argues no more cogently than any other Watchtower drone I've encountered. Where has anyone posted something that prompted you to imagine otherwise?
Why do you persist in trying to reframe the intent of this thread as something you've imagined?
AuldSoul
Auld Soul: Your argument assumes heirarchy of authority that does not exist.
Your argument assumes the simple-minded literalism that a word can not have multiple, simultaneous meanings.
To wit: Authority: an expert whose views are taken as definitive; "he is an authority on corporate law" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=authority)
Your conjectured rambling that effective, incisive, even devastating criticism grants someone AUTHORITY that would bear RESPONSIBLITY has no VALIDITY. It smacks of the same sort of argument used by thirdwitness, scholar and other posters regarding Jonsson or Franz. As though Jonsson or Franz has authority over us. AlanF is responsible for and has authority over exactly one person, as far as I know, namely himself.[...]
Your argument assumes heirarchy of authority that does not exist. Whereas the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has a heirarchy of authority, we do not. If you hoped to find one, or hoped to hold anyone's feet to the fire over what someone else believed based on a comment by a poster here, you are out of luck. If people agree with AlanF as to the strength of likelihood that this may be a campaign of some sort that doesn't mean they (1) view it as a threat, (2) agree with the exact nature as initially expressed by AlanF, or (3) agree with the objectives initially tossed out by AlanF.
Your illogic is based in false assumptions and a desire to find structure where there is none. In the absence of structure, you imagined one into existence. The fact that your imagination is providing you faulty information as a basis for your posts is your own lookout.
dilaceratus,
You are as slippery as an eel. Dowright unctuous.
An authority on corporate law is properly perceived as an authority in that field when speaking authortatively. He or she has no "responsibility" to mind what he or she says in any other milieu. Certainly, such a person speculating on matters of corporate law will be credited with sharp insights and their word may be regarded more weightily, but anyone who takes what he has to say speculatively in an informal setting as gospel is predictably in for several rude awakenings if they pin their retirement on it.
I assumed you were speaking of authority in the only rational sense you could mean on an informal discussion forum. That you weren't speaking hierarchically is difficult to imagine given your usage of the word "authority":
dilaceratus: With that authority comes a commensurate responsibility...
"Good communication" is all about the words you use and how you string them together. If you meant authority in the sense you now assert, the proper usage would be:
dilaceratus: As an authority he has a commensurate responsibility to...
I do hope you won't be expecting an apology from me for getting the grammatically correct idea from your miscommunication. I only responded to what you wrote, after all. I hope you didn't expect me to imagine what you meant by what you wrote. I find that people often expect behavior from others that imitates their own behavior. I try to avoid imagining what people meant by what they wrote whenever possible.
AuldSoul
I eventually forced him to admit that he was not acting alone. Exactly the same scenario occured with ThirdWitness....We know that Scholar is advised by an elder whom he admitted had considerable experience in the matter - these elders are very few and far between.
Unless you have met face to face and conclusively proven that tw and scholar are who they say they are, they are still shielded by the veil of anonymity that the web provides. Just because they may have admitted they were not acting alone or confided in you that an elder was helping them formulate their defense, doesn't mean a thing. They may create ANY story they wish - who can prove otherwise? When you say, "We know that Scholar is advised by an elder...," HOW do you know? Because Scholar said so? I'm sorry, but I've never met this person and I believe no one else on this board has either. So again, how do we know he is being advised by an elder? Umm, because we just take his word for it?
I know this thread was initiated simply as a hypothetical topic. But there was a relatively strong pattern which developed immediately after it was created. Because Alan started it, 95% of the posters following it agreed with Alan. I admit that I am one of the remaining 5% because my gut tells me he's off. Will this put me in the dog house with Alan? I don't really care. Some posters may feel the need to keep the status quo in line with Alan's train of thought. I agree with most of his topics - just not this one.
I view the WTS as a business. I feel that I have a fairly strong business sense. My gut told me that the WTS would cut back on the magazines months before the announcement was made(and yes, I'm still proud of the fact that I figured it would happen - just waiting for the other items to occur). Concerning these "posters" who try and debate WTS dogma on this board - What do they have to do with the WTS's bottom line? Nothing really. I just cannot see why the WTS would grant authority to a bethel worker or an elder to argue these doctrinal issues. They risk exposing these "Agents" to other more damaging topics - ones that cannot be defended or obfuscated. By allowing these agents to try and defend these doctrines in a public forum only exposes their flaws even further. Which is why the WTS never gets involved in any public debates with other religions or critics. Current doctrine is becoming formulated around cash flow and lawsuits. If the money dries up at the same or faster pace than now, the more mainstream they will likely become.
At this point in time, the WTS is focusing on the money. Years ago(pre voluntary donations) they might have pitched Alan's idea in a gb meeting if the internet existed. But these days? Highly unlikely.
Jourles: I view the WTS as a business...at this point in time, the WTS is focusing on the money.
I agree. It is a business. The Internet is hurting their money. They MUST address it in a business-like way. A business attempts to address threats to their revenue streams in every possible way. They know that the increased internal pressure against research on the Internet will only influence a percentage of their revenue generators. I credit them with running it as business. As such, they must keep up the illusion that their core product is intact (the religion) while publicly combatting a direct threat to their revenue streams in an anonymous way.
Again, I don't believe the intent of such a covert scheme is to bring people into the truth. If the covert scheme is roughly as described, the intent is simply to raise counter-questions in the minds of those on their way out. Retention is a FAR more reasonable objective of any business than is recruitment. Especially as the saturation point for the product nears.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Deliceratus,
I do not recall mentioning anyone's emotional or intellectual well-being at all, so that must be something new and irrelevant you have added to your understanding of my post.
Nonesense. You hardly seem to understand your own points of view.
This is what you wrote and that I responded to :
There are a hundred different ways such a guess might have been investigated privately. I object to such content-free bullying, whatever the source, or the target.
You describe AlanF as posting a thread that amount to 'bullying'. Now a person can only be bullied by words on a discussion board and not actions obviously. Words are received and processed intellectually. Get my drift?
Thirdwitness ought to be reviled as a result of his shoddy arguments and ridiculous claims, not because of the unproved perception that he is a Watchtower drone.
To your own admission this has already been done. Indeed, the speculation was inspired by the content ThirdWitness posts and latterly his admissions.
Given these admissions, the speculation proposed by AlanF is not out of the bounds of possibility. Or do you think that it is? Please state your position.
HS
Jourles,
Boy, can you guys miss the point!
Unless you have met face to face and conclusively proven that tw and scholar are who they say they are, they are still shielded by the veil of anonymity that the web provides. Just because they may have admitted they were not acting alone or confided in you that an elder was helping them formulate their defense, doesn't mean a thing. They may create ANY story they wish - who can prove otherwise? When you say, "We know that Scholar is advised by an elder...," HOW do you know? Because Scholar said so? I'm sorry, but I've never met this person and I believe no one else on this board has either. So again, how do we know he is being advised by an elder? Umm, because we just take his word for it?
I am not saying that Scholar or ThirdWitness spoke the truth in informing me, and the rest of the Board that they have other people involved in their posts. I am telling you that I noticed different writing styles, approached them about the matter, at which point they admitted that their posts were aided by others in the background. If they had an agenda for diverting attention from themselves, it has escaped my logic, but one may exist.But that is NOT the point.
The point is that, for truth or nay, on a discussion board such admissions correct or not, will justifiably lead to speculation.
Walking Aid Book or not, JW's who know enough about their own doctrines to argue with the depth that Scholar & ThirdWitness have are very, very few and far between, as I mentioned on another thread. This is bound to lead to speculation, which as I have noted is not a harmful thing, and probably about as offensive as 'fluff' thread about Mothers Ruin.
HS
Mothers Ruin. ???? Extra Dry London Gin?
