Patterson on the line: Watchtower claims that paying cash bond would cause “immediate irreparable harm and hardship”

by cedars 339 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

  • jws
    jws

    Why would they offer up Patterson? That to me would give some clues as to motives. My guess would be they never intend to lose it. Why? Because they most likely have more than enough cash to pay the settlement if they lose. So Patterson is simply a way to avoid the $86K cost of the bond.

    Why Patterson? Maybe because it is the nicest. If you want somebody to go for a deal, do you offer a warehouse in the city or a modern office building in the country? You want them to accept the property as collateral so you offer the best.

    As for Cedars, I know I'm gonna get blasted by others like King Solomon did. Cedars reminds me of the fresh young guy all full of vigor. Maybe you've seen this as JWs? Or maybe the fresh face at work. All gung-ho for the cause, expecting the end is going to come no longer than a month from now or at work that they're going to revolutionize the company with their ideas. From what I've read of him, Cedars is excited and preaching the end of the WBTS and wants to be the first kid on the block to announce it.

    Like the WBTS used to jump on every earthquake or disaster as a sign of the end, so Cedars jumps on any news that he interprets (by his own admission, his own opinions) as bad and is ready to proclaim a massive blow and how close the WBTS is to the edge.

    And like in JW-land (or ex-JW land), there are many of us who have been here for a while and take a "slow down young un" attitude. Admiring the enthusiasm, but having lived through this time and time again. Thinking, "I hope he's right, would be nice, but..."

    And he does seem mostly sincere in trying to fix changes others have pointed out, but on the other hand seems to have an ego and won't back down fully from mistaken premises. Notice how he is showing alternate points of view as if to be fair, but his initial premise is still there. He won't remove the article. I've seen this before. He may tweak the details, but no matter which ones change, he's still right.

    Cedars seems to want to make a name for himself in aposta-land. His survey, his articles, etc. Posting here about what he's done that's new. His constant monitoring here for feedback, thriving on encouragement and kind words. Look at this, over 4500 posts in 14 months of membership.

    This isn't the first article he's posted of impending WBTS doom. It seems to be an obsession of his. And some of his articles seem alarmist. Then the real facts come out. Wasn't it Cedars who first alerted us that the WBTS had a lein on their Brooklyn property until the Conti appeal was decided? When it came down to it, it was that they couldn't sell until a bond was posted. Not exactly the same details.

    I mean, I'm sure he's sincere and trying, and putting in a lot of research. But to me it comes off as sensationalist. And that's one thing to post here where a discussion can ensue and other insights can be offered. And it's quite different to just throw it out there to the masses on your website. Look at the headline: "Patterson on the line". Just because it's being used as collateral doesn't mean there's a chance of losing it. That's a false premise. Or "Watchtower claims that paying bond premium would lead to immediate irreparable harm and hardship". While others have pointed out this is standard terminology. And it would cost irreparable harm in the form of $86K that can't be regained.

    Maybe next time instead of writing an article on his own website, he can post a few facts here first and get feedback before making some grand article he can't easily back away from.

    I do not think Cedars is working for the JWs. I think he's sincere, just very gung-ho and maybe in search of reassurance and praise and a name for himself.

  • cedars
    cedars

    jws - why make it so personal? Can it not simply be about me trying to help people? Must I have ulterior motives?

    It's this side to the forum that seriously gets me down.

    Cedars

  • jws
    jws

    Sorry Cedars. I'll bet you're a real good guy. But I hate sensationalism especially when there's no merit behind it.

    Help people all you want. But maybe bounce the facts and ideas off people here before making a big deal on your website.

    It may not be helpful if people just coming out read about how close the WBTS is to the end and then it keeps going on. Like a JW who's told the end is right around the corner but life keeps going on. On the ex-JW side of the coin you can't threaten people with challenges to their faith and bully people into sticking with your side if they get discouraged because the WBTS doesn't end as soon as implied.

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    Just curious, in what ways have Mr Cedars threatened to disfellowship those who don't believe in his new idea? And to Mr. Cedars, please can you comment or substatiate on Justitia Themis's comment that imply you have threatened to disfellowship those who don't believe in your new idea?

    JT wote: Adjusting or amending an idea based on new information is not a sign of weakness, provided you don't threaten to disfellowship those who don't believe your new idea!

    I was indirectly referring to the WTS and "new light." I should have written, "provide one doesn't threaten to disfellowship..." instead of "you."

  • cedars
    cedars

    jws - Geez, I never said the WTBTS would collapse instantly. I maintain the signs are there that it has been decline since 2005 and have offered what I consider tangible evidence to prove that something is wrong. People can do with that information what they wish. It's a little early to point the finger and accuse me of sensationalism and raising false hopes when I've only been saying it for less than a year and never said it would happen instantly.

    As to my articles, I'm sorry if you don't like them but many people have indicated to me that they find them helpful. If you don't like the website, don't visit it! If there's anything wrong, unfactual or otherwise misleading in any of my articles, please bring it to my attention and I am only too happy to fix it as soon as possible.

    Other than that, I really don't understand why you need to be so personal with your comments and feel the need to do a complete psychological analysis of me when you don't know anything about me. It's all your supposition based on a warped opinion that you seem to have developed of me. And you accuse me of being sensationalist?

    I just can't work this forum out sometimes.

    Cedars

  • cedars
    cedars

    To those who think I shouldn't write or publish ANY articles before first running my material past a panel of approved advisors, I would respectfully ask you to look at the following link:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/06/secrets-and-lies-have-no-place-when-dealing-child-abuse

    It is an article in the New Statesman magazine published shortly after news of the Candace Conti verdict first broke. Note the obvious error in the final paragraph where the writer, Caroline Crampton, indicates that it was the secrecy surrounding Jonathan Kendrick's "2004 conviction" that led to Candace being molested. This is an obvious error, and I actually telephoned the New Statesman office and spoke to Caroline Crampton directly to explain the details of the case and various parts of her article (including this one) that needed fixing. She fixed part of the article, but not this important detail.

    I called back but the office had closed so I left a voicemail message explaining the remaining error. Nothing was ever done.

    I bring up this article because it seems a small number on this forum believe that if I can't get all my facts straight FIRST TIME I should write absolutely nothing. Well, if the New Statesman magazine can write false information without even amending errors when these are brought to their attention, why can't I write on important issues that few journalists can be bothered to cover with the proviso that I will gladly fix any wrong information that is mistakenly included in my articles?

    I am being held to a standard that even professional journalists seemingly aren't held to, and all because some of you don't seem to want me to write about stories that matter to our community - specifically stories that those indoctrinated Witnesses still trapped inside the organization need to hear.

    I really do wish you could channel your obvious frustrations elsewhere and pick on someone else - someone who isn't spending days on end researching and writing articles with a view to helping people get out of a damaging cult.

    Cedars

  • stuckinamovement
    stuckinamovement

    Cedars, you are doing great work that is having a major impact in exposing the Society. Don't let the haters get you down.

  • ziddina
    ziddina

    We ALL wish that the Watchtower Society would fall - and dayyamed soon, too.

    It's hard to read of indicators that it's "going down", while realizing that it may continue to exist for a LOOONG time.

  • Scott77
    Scott77

    Justitia Themis,

    Yes, I got it. I also thought of the same way. As a junior apostate, I know very well that when one speaks about disfellowshiping, one is refering or has in mind the Watchtower or its representatives. It appears the misundersanding was not limited to myself alone.

    Mr Cedars, just to let you know, your ways of presenting the work has the unintended consequences of stiring up unexpcted interests from a variety of posters, some of whom as forced to provide additional details in a way that benefits everyone. Believe me, instead of them directly starting up the subject, there are posters here that have stayed on since 2002 that have built their credibility by 'correcting' what others have posted.the inevitable consequences of stiring up unexpcted interests from a variety of sources becomes the obvious, much to the benefit of all of us.

    Scott77

  • ÁrbolesdeArabia
    ÁrbolesdeArabia

    jws, sensationalism creates quick or slow hits depending on the content. We live in a time of "publish or die irrelevant!", the author gets better at writing with investigative journalism or turns into "Fox and Friends". Don't hate the player, hate the game!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit