"High-Control Groups" (page 7)

Quillsky

That is complete bullshit. You know it, we all know it. Most people who search for "Jehovahs Witnesses" on the internet after your pushed your crappy magazines and leaflets through the door know it.

You don't fool anyone anymore with your WTS double-speak and you are not welcome coming here to post blatant lies and propaganda of a mind-control C-U-L-T

Simon, are you saying you are banning Consfearacy for "lying"? Please tell me I've read this wrong and you aren't going back to your old ways of banning someone for posting things that you/we/the majority here/whoever disagrees with?

I don't see anything in the forum rules that says one may not post JW doctrine.

Essan

Quillskysaid : "I don't see anything in the forum rules that says one may not post JW doctrine".

Have you read the thread Quillsky?

Consfearacy wasn't criticized for posting JW doctrine, but for lying about JW practice, claiming that JW's were free to disagree with the Society within the Org. (without negative repercussions) and if such differences bothered them, they were free to leave without sanctions if that was their choice, etc. when this is absolutely false, as we all know. It's a lie. JW's are not free even to "harbour private ideas" about doctrine, never mind to openly disagree, and they are not "free" to leave if they disagree. They can leave, but not without being demonized and shunned and losing lifelong friends and even family.

Surely continual deliberate lying shouldn't be tolerated here?

cantleave

Well Done Simon!!!!!

For those who have been hurt by the sanctions imposed for disagreeing with the WTS, those who are being shunned by family and friends, the lies spouted by the likes of Alice are particularly hurtful.

Quillsky

Have you read the thread Quillsky?

Consfearacy wasn't posting JW doctrine, he/she was lying about JW practice, claiming that JW's were free to disagree with the Society within the Org. (without negative repercussions) and if such differences bothered them, to leave without sanctions if that was their choice, etc. when this is absolutely false, as we all know. It's a lie. JW's are not free even to "harbour private ideas" about doctrine, never mind to openly disagree, and they are not "free" to leave if they disagree. They can leave, but not without being demonized and shunned and losing lifelong friends and even family.

Surely continual deliberate lying shouldn't be tolerated here?

Essan, firstly I read every thread I post on, completely, and sometimes a few times over.

Secondly, I personally believe that Consfearancy is talking a bunch of complete shit, and that your synopsis of what he posts versus the reality in JW Land is indeed accurate (although somewhat primitive and uninspiring in the way you express it - if you disagree with a claim then challenge it, don't roll over and whimper "he's lying".)

However, I don't believe that posting untruths is a cause for banning a poster from a forum. After all, we are DISCUSSING a religion that is riddled with lies and liars, for god's sake. Do you really want to ban all sparring partners? Would you prefer to silence all debate?

Quillsky

Well Done Simon!!!!!

For those who have been hurt by the sanctions imposed for disagreeing with the WTS, those who are being shunned by family and friends, the lies spouted by the likes of Alice are particularly hurtful.

I wish this were a bad attempt at sarcasm, cantleave, but sadly I realize you're serious.

Alice and Cons and Reniaa are not the WBTS org, they are not your parents, they are not your relatives, they are not your former friends who are shunning you.

The are one or more posters on a forum gathered to discuss issues that are close to the hearts of many of us. Banning posters who support the org in its dishonesty won't get your family talking to you again. I warmly welcome dissent. What is the point of a discussion forum otherwise? (Dissent, as opposed to personal insults, threats and so on, which are clearly anti-social and against board rules.)

Leave your emotions at the door, people. Simon included.

Essan

Q said: "Do you really want to ban all sparring partners? Would you prefer to silence all debate?"

Come on Q! That insinuation is very unfair, seeing as I have engaged in debate, at great length, on several threads with Consfearacy over the past couple of weeks. Probably more so than anyone.

I'm always happy to debate and I don't appreciate the inference that I'd like to stifle it. I love debate and I think it's a great way of exposing false reason and unsubstantiated claims. Consfearacy's arguments were, to be honest, completely destroyed in those debates, repeatedly, by a number of posters and I think that was very useful for any JW's reading to see a showcase of the evidence and the arguments so they can reach their own conclusions.

But obvious lying is not 'debate' and that is all Consfearacy had left. I don't think people who are clearly lying should be indulged or given a platform where they may mislead others. This isn't a matter of a difference of opinion or of debate.

And as Cantleave said, this particular lie is also deeply insulting to many here. What's the point defending that?

Quillsky

Essan, all respect (from my heart, mate, I mean it!) to you for engaging with Cons over the weeks - you have more patience than I have!

I think we're slightly talking at cross-purposes here though. We agree that debate is good, but what got me going was Simon's implication that he's banned Cons. You made a comment...

Surely continual deliberate lying shouldn't be tolerated here?

I understand "shouldn't be tolerated" as supporting a banning. So this is where we differ, since he (or she, whatever) is breaking no actual rules, just making him/herself look a bit silly.

This is where I'm coming from. I look like a newbie but I've been around this board community for many years and I've seen some incredible posters, some extremely useful to the ex-JW cause, even people who have contributed life-changing research to the JWD archive, being banned by Simon for differences of opinion, not breaking forum rules. So I don't want to see that starting up again.

So this is my way of trying to nip the disease in the bud. Hope you understand.

wasblind

Hey quillsky,

you don't look like any Newbies i know

just kidding

alice.in.wonderland

Quillsky, the user ID that was banned was my husbands. We both participated in the conversations because of users, inciting hatred on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality or sexuality or other personal characteristic. Those who claim to be males making sexually explicit remarks. The hate speech stopped when the user ID was identified as a male. And you are right. The moderator allows this while banning a person just becasue they are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. So I sent him this:

"I received word from the user you banned. The reason he was here (my husband) is because of all the hate speech I received that you obviously incite and approve of yourself. I thoroughly read your terms and conditions. Either make some direct statements about Jehovah's Witnesses not being permitted here or more will follow up and be visiting your forum. If you don't want that than say so in understandable speech."

wasblind

Alice, are you saying consfearacy was your husband ?

i'm just asking for clarity.

"High-Control Groups"

Share this