Thirdwitness -- An Agent of the Governing Body?

by AlanF 156 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  dilaceratus

  Auld Soul: 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...

  What I wrote was: "With that authority comes commensurate responsibility..." Read by someone fairly literate, this would be easily understood as: "With that [power and influence conferred by respect, long-established reputation, and mental superiority] comes commensurate responsibility..."

  As in, for example, in Milton's Paradise Lost:

  Truth, wisdom, sanctitude severe and pure,

  (Severe, but in true filial freedom placed,)

  Whence true authority in men; . . .

  You appear to contradict yourself, in chiding me for what you feel to be too formal a word choice (on an "informal board"-- as opposed to, say, JWO?), and then immediately chastising me for what you (incorrectly) perceive to be poor usage. Is the "good communication" you speak so longingly of some sort of code for, "Speak slowly, former Jehovah's Witnesses present"? Hillary_step seems to think otherwise.

  Is there any chance you will resist posting another reckless accusation about the content of my posts until you have given it at least a half an hour or so to sink in?

  Hillary_step: 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?

  Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually. Whether agonizing or orgasmic, any experience that is to be described must first be intellectualized. Your designation is meaningless.

  Still, to follow your line of rationale, it would be dangerous for anyone's "intellectual health" for them to not immediately post whatever speculation popped into their head, however harmful, scurrilous, or untrue it may be. Should we conclude, then, that your own imagination is lacking, or that your own intellectual health compromised?

  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.

  Having no evidence other than a claim by Thirdwitness that his work was collaborative, I haven't the slightest idea whether it might be possible or not. It is surely unlikely, given the Tyre argument, previous e-Watchman affiliation, and participation in the screwy Jehovah Ring. Mightn't it be improbable, but not impossible, that AlanF is a racist? Or that Raymond Franz was selected by Fred to serve as a Goldstein? Or that Scholar is none other than Peter Carey, having some fun? Please state your position.

  LYLAS,

  [Deliceratus]
• 

  hillary_step

  deliceratus,

  Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually. Whether agonizing or orgasmic, any experience that is to be described must first be intellectualized.

  AudSoul is right. You certainly are a very slippery creature. Let me remind you what you wrote :

  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.

  This was in response to my earlier post :

  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.

  Though you try to slip from your own words, you must think that readers cannot read or follow simple logic ( which actually underlies your bellicose complaints on this thread ) as they read these posts. It was your good self who originally mentioned the effect that AlanF's 'no content bullying' might have on those who read his post. You then state....let me remind you again :

  I do not recall mentioning anyone's emotional or intellectual well-being at all,

  I then wrote :

  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?

  You then intone the following :

  Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually.

  lol.....Try to follow your own arguments with some consistency, you are leaving a trail behind you that smacks of a lack of critical thinking skills, wrapped in a very thick verbal pantie hose.

  Come now deliceratus, surely you can do better than that!

  HS
• 

  Pistoff

  [Ecce signum,]
  
  [Dilaceratrus]
  

  Dilatedanus and EW just love to hear themselves talk, eh?

  ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT. Do you think it is possible, or probable, that TW has help from Bethel??
• 

  dilaceratus

  Hillary_step: You certainly are a very slippery creature.

  Really? Then who is it that chopped off the last line of my quote, which fully answers your supposed complaint about my response?>

  Deliceratus: Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually. Whether agonizing or orgasmic, any experience that is to be described must first be intellectualized. Your designation is meaningless.

  My interest in this thread has nothing to do with Thirdwitness, who is clearly a boob. I am not concerned for either his emotional or intellectual health, nor for that of AlanF. I do have a passing interest in injustice.

  AlanF crushing Thirdwitness because his facts and arguments are superior is not an injustice: Thirdwitness chose to participate. AlanF starting a thread which, without any evidence, suggests that Thirdwitness is a persona manufactured by the WTBTS society is an injustice, where one poster, much more powerful, whether intentionally or not, by weight of their influence is bullying another.

  Under what circumstances, or by what denial, might Thirdwitness dispute this charge, "theoretically" made?
• 

  dilaceratus

  Pistoff: ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT.

  As I did two hours and thirteen minutes before you made your demand?

  I do feel that, short some new information, this is becoming an unproductive discussion.

  SWAK,

  [Dilatedanus]
• 

  hillary_step

  deliceratus,

  Deliceratus: Perhaps you can describe for me some stimulus that is not processed intellectually. Whether agonizing or orgasmic, any experience that is to be described must first be intellectualized. Your designation is meaningless.

  I removed the bolded part to save you the embarrassment of informing you that I catually made no designation whatsoever and I presumed in your hurry to throw an avalanche of words my way, you used a term incorrectly.

  I am not concerned for either his emotional or intellectual health, nor for that of AlanF.

  My God but you are hard going! Where was any mention made of the emotional health of either ThirdWitness, or AlanF by myself, or even hinted at? It was you who is concerned about the welfare of those who read Alan's post and are somehow going to be damaged by it!

  Good grief - just to recap. It was your good self who instigated this whole discussion by describing Alan's post as 'no content. 'bullying'. Just who did you have in mind when you used the term 'bullying'? Well you mention this yourself when you suggest that those on this Board who trust Alan and run away with 'rumours' are enduring something detrimental to themselves. I then suggested that you not concern yourself with the intellectual damage that this 'bullying' might do to others, as they will survive without your concerns.

  Read the posts again as I have no time for this endless loop of repetition on my part, and self-contradiction on your part.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  deliceratus,

  Pistoff: ADDRESS THE ARGUMENT.

  As I did two hours and thirteen minutes before you made your demand?

  No you have not. Not at all. The argument is this :

  Are you saying that it is impossible for ThirdWitness and his cronies to have WTS backing for his posts?

  Just to preempt any sliding sideways to the rear, I am not asking if this is probable, I am asking if it is possible. If it is possible, then AlanF has every right to speculate on the motives of ThirdWitness without getting a lecture from yourself.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  deliceratus,

  I do feel that, short some new information, this is becoming an unproductive discussion.

  According to ALL your posts above, this was never a productive discussion to begin with. You are man with goal posts on his shoulders rather than a cross.

  HS
• 

  dilaceratus

  Hillary_step (5885): I catually made no designation whatsoever and I presumed in your hurry to throw an avalanche of words my way, you used a term incorrectly.

  An assignation:

  Hillary_step (5882): 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?

  Hillary_step (5885): Where was any mention made of the emotional health of either ThirdWitness, or AlanF by myself, or even hinted at?

  A hint:

  Hillary_step (5880): 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...

  You complain of repetitiveness, yet continue to circle in ways that do not further discussion. You continue in the juvenile pursuit of asking me to pass judgment on a blatantly fallacious argument for a possibility. (When you respond to my query as to whether it is a possibility, not probable, but a possibility that AlanF is a racist, we will perhaps revisit the issue.) I will take your increasing disjointedness and failure to respond to any of the germane points of my posts (particularly 97) to be the effects of a tardy bedtime.

  And again: under what circumstances, or by what denial, might Thirdwitness dispute or clear himself of this charge, "theoretically" made? When such a question is unanswerable, it is the result of an abuse of power.

  [Redacted Emoticon,]

  [Deliceratus]
• 

  IW

  The Watchtower likes to lob the derogatory term "apostate" toward those who disagree with them. The exJW equivalent to that term is "GB plant", it has the same purpose and result. To call someone a GB plant in the exJW world is tantamount to branding them with the mark of the devil. lol

  The idea that most JWs are stupid is an exJW myth. This board and AlanF himself did more to create 3rd Witness and his friends than the GB could ever do. For every action there is reaction and the younger generation of JWs are reacting. Maybe its time the older exJW greats realized that fact just as the GB itself needs to see the same reality.

  IW