"no need to diminish yourself in public with cheap shots"...
**** This would actually carry some weight if your reply to me wasn't FULL OF CHEAP SHOTS.
Know what I mean?
Hypothetically, If Someone Created a Fake Congregation to Trick Another...
by OnTheWayOut 113 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
besty
Vinny - you suggest beating the system could be accomplished by fading
If you want to beat the system go ahead and do a fade then.
The whole point of this thread (and the previous one) was to address the problem of a DF'd person. See any problems with your plan to beat the system?
Your subsequent points were moot after this initial disconnect.
-
Vinny
A fader IS beating the system. And it can last forever if you walk with some discretion. I DA'd, and happily so. I still get to expose JW nonsense online. I was on a USA Today thread for two weeks on and off last month. Mowing down several JW's.
But my wife Faded and can slip in all kinds of neat remarks, plus can talk to JW people that she knows (though her son shuns anyway) and gets away with it.
A bogus reinstatement will be CAUGHT and likely very quickly because of reasons I already posted as did Snakes.
You are not addressing those specific issues. I am. See the difference?
Like I said earlier, if YOU think it works then go for it. I just don't see it the same way and explained specifically why.
I have no reasons to keep doing this on this thread. This is a waste of time for us to keep going on and on. We are both on the same side here.
-
besty
If someone is DF'd they cannot fade - this thread (and the previous one) are attempts to offer alternative paths to those ones. "Should I fade or DA?" is an endless discussion with no right answer for all circumstances - the potential fader still has some choices - the DF'd one less so.
Your faded wife can slip in neat comments to her hearts content - I can smoke my fat cigar and blow smoke in JW faces to my hearts content - no right answer there.
I think in the spirit of JWN, freeminds and jwfacts etc if possible options and outcomes are made known to people they can make a call on what is right for them. To dismiss this particular idea out of hand is shortsighted.
You're right - we are on the same side - I'm disappointed you accuse me of being drunk, spell my username wrong in 8 different ways (with otherwise perfect typing) and then only give a respectful response when pushed to do so.
EDIT - I was DF'd for apostasy in August 2007 and am currently being shunned by my entire immediate family. The only blood relations I have on this planet not shunning me are 4 and 2 years of age respectively.
-
Vinny
"If someone is DF'd they cannot fade"
**** And if they even TRY a bogus reinstatement they will either be caught right away or be found out very soon. Making things even worse than before.
All I've done is share specifically why it would not last. Agree or disagree is fine. But my reasons are posted.
I am disassociated, tell me how your plan can get me back in the saddle? Everybody knows me here. They know where I live. Like I said twice before now, this plan is dead on arrival with anybody that does not live many miles from the congo they were DF'd in.
Do you see the problem you have now?
"I think in the spirit of JWN, freeminds and jwfacts etc if possible options and outcomes are made known to people they can make a call on what is right for them. To dismiss this particular idea out of hand is shortsighted."
**** I dismissed this as a poor idea and explained just why I think it's a poor idea. Nothing shortsighted about doing that. I have given many details over the past two days.
What's shortsighted here is not taking the time to see things through. I have done just that. Just read my comments again.
"You're right - we are on the same side - i'm just disappointed you accuse me of drinking, spell my username wrong in 8 different ways and then only give a respectful response when pushed to do so."
**** Sorry but you are full of salami here. You can't let it go can you? YOU started with the sarcasm. YOUR post was out of line. Go read.
Did I complain about it Besty? No I just played the same back to you in my reply. And you didn't like it. It sure seems you like to dish it out but don't like to take it.
Can we just move on now?
-
Vinny
I see Spike and Reniaa are acting up on other threads. I am leaving this one. I like your work Besty.
What we are doing is helping others to see a complete JW picture rather than just the view they get from a JW bible study. And that is a noble cause, IMO.
I hope you agree we both have better things to do than argue about a phony reinstatement program. You think it's a good idea I think it's a bad idea. We can agree to disagree then.
Aloha,
Vinny
-
besty
Vinny it is unsustainable to assert that this cannot and has not worked - unless you are privy to worldwide statistics from Brooklyn on such failed attempts? Please share these stats with us. Yes you have offered your opinion, and it stays in the realm of unsubstantiated opinion without facts.
I don't have a plan - speak to Flipper about that - my suggestion is to make public a methodology that may work. Your mileage may vary. You promote the benefits of fading although that didn't work for you personally? Just be a bit more open to posssibilities is all I suggest.
Sorry but you are full of salami here. You can't let it go can you? YOU started with the sarcasm.
Ok for the avoidance of ambiguity my post was:
thats my point Vinny - we have enough smarts on this board to create 2.0 FakeReInstate for those that want to try....
attempt number 1 is not usually the final version - it's called natural selection :-)
and your reply was:
"thats my point Vinny - we have enough smarts on this board to create 2.0 FakeReInstate for those that want to try....
attempt number 1 is not usually the final version - it's called natural selection :-)"
****
let the reader decide who started the disrespect - my post evidently didn't demand any more recognition from you than cutting and pasting my text and adding your 4 **** and a boohoo icon.....
-
besty
I hope you agree we both have better things to do than argue about a phony reinstatement program. You think it's a good idea I think it's a bad idea. We can agree to disagree then.
Not completely accurate.
I support 'most' ideas as being worth sharing. Evolution - not me or you - will decide which survive. Otherwise we are being dogmatic and ...erm....attempting to make other people think like us.
The pitfalls you and others pointed out are equally valuable, but opening avenues to beat the WTS seems more logical than closing them.
Our estimation of their likely success or possible consequences is counterproductive. Just set them free.
Happy days.
PS - don't accuse people of drinking on discussion groups - its not clever.
-
Vinny
Misunderstand here.
Betsy wrote: "thats my point Vinny - we have enough smarts on this board to create 2.0 FakeReInstate for those that want to try....
attempt number 1 is not usually the final version - it's called natural selection :-)"
And Vinny Replied: **** (with nothing else written)
And now Betsy replies: "let the reader decide who started the disrespect - my post evidently didn't demand any more recognition from you than cutting and pasting my text and adding your 4 **** and a boohoo icon....."
**** My Reply to all of this now:
You have obviously misread my reply then. Okay, so now that might explain why you started with sarcasm in your following reply. And why I followed with the same in mine.
Just to be clear, this was a mistake on your part. But at least we know where this took a turn downward.
Now let's see once again the very comment that I replied to you about. You wrote:
"thats my point Vinny - we have enough smarts on this board to create 2.0 FakeReInstate for those that want to try.... attempt number 1 is not usually the final version - it's called natural selection :-)"
**** Now notice, what is the very last thing at the end of your comment Besty? Take a close look, what do you see? Yep, that would be a SMILEY FACE.
YOU put that there, not me.
Now, I thought your comment was funny as well. And here is my reply to you:
That folks is what I call Bwaaahahahahaah laughing. I am laughing just like Besty is laughing at the end of his own comment.
And it sure ain't a boohoo emoticon (as you now claim Besty), I can tell you that for sure. THIS is a "boohoo" emoticon:
But going even further here, to drive my point home, Besty asks me to comment about that smiley, saying I live on an island etc and then I do comment with this:
"Bwaaahaahahahaaha" (and then a wink).
Now if you can't tell I am laughing from the icon, then you should surely tell I am laughing with Bwaaaahahahaaaha and then a wink.
There was no jesting in that exchange at all.
But obviously you saw it differenty and then kept getting smart/sarcastic.
I then came on much more sarcastically after that in my detailed reply explaining why I think it's a bad idea to have bogus reinstatement congregations and letters.
And then we did the tit for tat thing where you kept losing.
heh (I am laughing again....
At least it should all be clear now. I was laughing just like you were laughing and even said just that Bwaaaahahahaah.
Vinny
-
Vinny
Besty writes: "Vinny it is unsustainable to assert that this cannot and has not worked - unless you are privy to worldwide statistics from Brooklyn on such failed attempts? Please share these stats with us. Yes you have offered your opinion, and it stays in the realm of unsubstantiated opinion without facts.
**** I do not need worldwide statistics to tell you why I think an idea will not work. Just a little common sense and some specifics. And I shared specific details just what I think would happen. You did not refute any of it, btw.
Yes, it's only my opinion, and I said just that too many times to remember now. Only you said something in response like, "Thanks for giving me permission" afterwards.
Which of course prompted my reply that you didn't care for.
Look, this is done and over for me. Far too much time on this thing already. I have stated just why I think the idea of a phony reinstatement program will not work with numerous details expressed.
I have addressed/refuted your reasons why you and others like it, also in detail. At least for me I did.
I will conclude with some of those exact reasons given below without the sarcasm (and name spelling corrections) this time.
Have a good one,
Vinny
Besty quotes Vinny: "If you want to beat the system go ahead and do a fade then."
Besty Replies to vinny quote: "There is no one correct solution for all cases. Fading is particularly problematic for those already disfellowshipped, which was the subject of the original post."
**** No more problematic than pulling off a fake reinstatement once people start checking up on you and congratulating/encouraging you.
For starters most people do not live hundreds of miles away from the congregation that disfellowshipped them. So then what? They are dead in mud under your new plan right there. That aint much of a plan to me.
It takes usually six months to a year for reinstatement if you go to meetings for most cases. If you did something heavy, like practicing adultery, then it could take longer. BUT, THE INITIAL JC WILL ALSO SEE RED FLAGS RAISED if you come in any sooner for serious offenses like that.
Obviously people have not thought this thing out very well.
Besty quotes Vinny: "My wife has faded and she can talk to most JW's today."
Besty replies to my quote: "I'm happy your wife can enjoy partially restricted interaction with fundamentalist cult members. Does she have the freedom to discuss her birthday celebrations with her love bomber buddies?"
**** How will wifey be able to talk birthday celebrations under any bogus fade, true fade, active JW, disfellowshipped JW or anything else under the sun? She will not have ANY freedom of speech with ANY JW under ANY circumstances.
Besty writes: " There is no simplistic one-size-fits-all answer to exiting a high control group."
**** All I'm saying is I think your plan for bogus congos and bogus reinstatement letters is a bad idea.
Besty quotes Vinny: "If you instead want to create a phony congregation and phony judicial committees , then go for it. I sure won't stop anybody."
Besty Replies to vinny: "Thanks for the permission to try new ways to defeat the WTS."
**** That'll cost you $250. I'll send permission in writing once I get the funds in hand.
Besty concludes: " If a DF'd person is being shunned how much worse can it get for all concerned? Go on Vinny - unleash the inner optimist that is begging to create new ways to undermine the WTS....or die in a fatalist coffin"....
**** I have seen many ways to undermine WT Society. But this idea sure aint one of the best I've seen. Like I said in beginning anybody that lives close by to congo where DF'd is already dead in mud.
Do you realize that yet?
And those that do move far away will still get caught very soon if it can be pulled off at all.
Like I said on last nights deleted thread: (and good riddance)
"What do you think happens after he gets the reinstatement letter read on Thursday night?
Take a stroll here Cognac...
This guy is a former 20 year elder . And the judicial committee in his old cong that makes the announcement will be asked where he's at today by other elders and by friends and family that know him.
It will get around to other congregations in his circuit that also knew him and that he likely gave talks at for 20 years.
So then what happens? Will ANYBODY want to call to congratulate him? Will anybody call his new cong to get his number? What happens when ONE PERSON calls his congregation and finds out right then and there that he was never reinstated or they never heard of the guy?
Will his old or new C.O. make sure they check on him too?
How about his closest family. Will they be curious to see when he started going to meetings again? Will they want to see him and maybe visit him in his new congregation? Only to find out what?
I can go on and on. Just use your mind and you can see this will never work.
If he really wanted to beat the system he should have just continued going through the motions and gone to the meetings and writing new reinstatement letters until they said yes. He could have written the Society about all those times the brothers kept saying no.
He could have talked to the CO about it when he visits twice a year face to face.
But what was done here is just plain foolish and will never work for any amount of time.
And then after being exposed for this bogus reinstatement with XXXX, what are the chances this guy will ever get reinstated even 10 years later again??"
**** Back to current. Just use some common sense here folks. This is a bad idea. Sorry I think you guys need to go back to the drawing board here.
Vinny
**** Over and out this time!
Aloha,
Vinny