Conti update article: "Watchtower Loses Conti Appeal - But Fights On"

by cedars 147 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Scott77

  When someone describes the vast majority of folks on this site as being ignorant, I will respond. Scott came on to this thread entirely ignorant of the subject matter being discussed, and chose to level criticism at me, based on his own ignorance of the subject matter. He also advocated leaving a false statement in your article. I stand by my response and make no apologies for it.
  144001

  Mr. 144001,

  I did not intent to describe posters here as being ignorant. I believe, my opinion represent the majority as far as the understanding of what JNOV is concerned. Certainly,you are taking my opinion out of context. Your wholesale dismissal of Cedar's headline as entirely misleading without aknowldeging the substance of its content was to me, questionable. I stand by this legitimate criticism.

  Scott77
• 

  iclone

  Personally I appreciate the effort Cedars is taking to keep as many of as possible informed on this monumental case. I might also add to 144001 that while you did make some valid points; I feel you should have sent Cedars your viewpoint via a PM. I do not see the need to publicly embarrass another member of the forum who has proven over time that he is a person of integrity. Many of 144001's comments were disturbing to me because it reminded me of how the elders like to talk down to the publishers and demean them. At least Cedars is investing his time and finances to help all of us keep abreast of the situation-and for that I am truly grateful. So once again Cedars-THANK YOU!

  On a side note, this case has helped me convince my Mother-In-Law to stop sending money to the WTS. Over the years she has donated thousands and thousands of dollars. Once I was able to show her what was happening, she was appalled. Just recently she told me the WTS is not getting another dime from her. That was music to my ears...
• 

  Band on the Run

  Many times I have posted concerning misleading and false information on Conti threads. Someone said they wanted to vomit at my remarks. If Cedars were a NY Times reporter or a legal journalist, the thread was bonkers. He is not a professional and does not post here in the course of his professional duties. He is very interested and tries to explain things in terms that are understandable.

  A Judgment Not Withstanding the Verdict is not an appeal in legal terms. No way. It is an appeal in lay terms. Lawyers are trained to be precise and that details matter. My sister tells me that I drive her nuts asking questions about details whenever she tells me generic gossip. She is right.

  I tried to explain in normal people terms. My purpose was to be neutal and only report, not spin. Many people thought I was anti-Conti and were vicious. You cannot hint at anything anti-Conti on this forum. People seem not to want to know the reality of the situation. When I wrote that legions of lawyers in this country could litigate a similar case, people were furious. I am certain that Simons would agree with me. He did a very good job. Lawyers who do excellent jobs still lose because of facts or the law itself.

  So we can rah, rah Conti and Simons. Worship and bow down to Simons. This is so JW to me. Conti's case is strong enough that we can admit the difficulties she faces. Normal prudence has disappeared. No one who wins a trial should spend all of their award until the appeal is final.

  I raised the issue on another thread of this one that the thread was not neutral or objective. Reading Cedars posts, though, I do not believe it was his intention to be misleading. I assume that he did the best job he could. On the other hand, I was so grateful to 144,001 for raising valid, objective points. Someone else was willing to be tarred and feathered.

  It was nice that the title now is accurate. No one here seems to be evil. Someone with no training and should not be expected to research in great detail wrote a post the best they could. Conti's case has been an aggravation for me. I find this sad because I assume all posters wish her well. Personally, I don't mind partisan commentary after the legal details are accurately reported. We need some rah-rah concerning this topic. Rodney KIng- can't we all just get along?
• 

  144001

  <<<<Many of 144001's comments were disturbing to me because it reminded me of how the elders like to talk down to the publishers and demean them.>>>>

  Iclone,

  It's rather insulting to me that you would have the audacity to compare me to an elder. I won't divulge what it is that you remind me of, as it's likely that my disclosure of such information will lead to meaningless exchanges of vitriole that will adversely impact this forum.

  However, I do admit it when I become aware that I'm wrong, and in this case, I've already apologized to Cedars as I didn't intend to imply that he was intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Upon rereading my post I realized that I did make that implication with my words, albeit unintentionally. It was out of line and I've responded accordingly.

  <<<< I did not intent [sic] to describe posters here as being ignorant. I believe, my opinion represent the majority as far as the understanding of what JNOV is concerned. Certainly,you are taking my opinion out of context.>>>

  Scott77,

  What is your belief based upon? It appears to me that you're assuming that the majority of the people on this forum are devoid of even a simplistic understanding of the legal system. Thus, the picture you paint of the "majority" of folks on this forum is not a flattering one, and I find it to be offensive.

  How have your words been taken out of context? They are your words, and they do have meaning, notwithstanding your efforts to avoid accepting responsibility for them.

  <<<<Your wholesale dismissal of Cedar's headline as entirely misleading without aknowldeging [sic] the substance of its content was to me, questionable. I stand by this legitimate criticism.>>>

  The headline of the article was false in its entirety. Therefore, it was also "entirely misleading." If that's "questionable" to you, perhaps you could provide some clarification of exactly what about it is "questionable" to you? if you disagree with anything I've posted regarding the Conti case or Cedar's article, please quote me, state what it is about the quote that you disagree with, and provide a reference to the legal authority that supports your contentions in this regard.
• 

  144001

  Band,

  Thank you for your comment in support of my posts on this thread. I thnk you know that I call them as I see them, and I don't really care if that is offensive to others. People don't have to like me, and outside of this forum, there are a number of folks who don't. Oh well. Life is too short to waste it trying to please everyone, and I have no problem defending myself here, on the street, or in a professional setting. In the words of the "Decider" (George W. Bush), "bring it on!"
• 

  cedars

  144001

  I have no problem defending myself here, on the street, or in a professional setting. In the words of the "Decider" (George W. Bush), "bring it on!"

  I do admire and value your insistence on accuracy, and the way you have helped me with my article by correcting an obvious flaw that could have otherwise led to confusion. However, when you come out with statements like the above you come across as someone who is desperately seeking confrontation where none exists. That's just my observation, you can do what you want with it.

  Cedars
• 

  144001

  <<<<However, when you come out with statements like the above you come across as someone who is desperately seeking confrontation where none exists. >>>>

  Cedars,

  You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I think nothing less of you for expressing it here. But I disagree that there was no confrontation, and I think anyone who reads this thread objectively will recognize that comments you characterize as "seeking confrontation" are actually a response to those who have chosen to disparage me with their own comments.
• 

  Killa

  I'd like to see what happens to the WTS after all these lawsuits involve the media and members within the organization have no choice, but to realize what is going on. However, they'll keep marching strong, blind but strong.
• 

  cedars

  144001

  I think anyone who reads this thread objectively will recognize that comments you characterize as "seeking confrontation" are actually a response to those who have chosen to disparage me with their own comments.

  Fair enough. It's just my observation.

  Cedars
• 

  BroMac

  @AnnOmaly

  thanks for the info. much appreciated