Good work cedars. Thanks for the article.
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
-
-
rip van winkle
Cedars, you must not allow personal opinions to affect the work you are trying to accomplish. There will always be a critic or two and that goes with the territory.
Sometimes people hold others up to a standard that they wouldn't want others to hold them up to. Please continue your work. Thank you.
-
King Solomon
Scott 77 said:
Mr Cedars, just to let you know, your ways of presenting the work has the unintended consequences
Yeah, interesting that you'd mention "unintended consequences". Here's another one to consider:
By falsely reporting that the Society is claiming hardship over it's ability to pay the settlement (a lie), it instead is likely to have the EXACT opposite effect on active JWs, who read the story and are fooled, making an extra-large donation to "Mother" to help line the GB's pockets with EVEN MORE tax-free loot $$$. Since Cedar's site is not clear as to it's status (loyal or apostate), many JWs are likely to trust it as a trusted source of JW information.
Not hard to see that, esp. after reading the account on page 2 from Tylin (was it?) who mentioned how an announcement from the podium on Sunday guaranteed the contribution boxes would be filled within the hour.
-
free @ last
Cedars has already made it clear that he does not appreciate your criticism KS. Why not just ignore his posts and avoid clicking on his links if you don't like sensationalism. Head to JWFacts if you're looking for something more factual. It's unfortunate that thread titles cannot be changed; this one could definitely be reworded to better reflect the actual state of the Conti case right now. Bugger.
-
ScenicViewer
King Solomon said,
Since Cedar's site is not clear as to it's status (loyal or apostate), many JWs are likely to trust it as a trusted source of JW information.
From what I have read of Cedars' articles he his genuinely trying to appeal to Jehovah's Witnesses to help them awaken to the true nature of the Watchtower Society. Since JW's are conditioned to reject anything that they percieve to be apostate, wouldn't it be counter-productive for him to declare that his site is anti-Watchtower, aposate, or anything similar? That information would trigger most JW's to leave the site, mistakenly thinking they were getting in touch with one of Satan's agents.
I believe his approach at least allows JWs to take in some of the information, which may get them to thinking. Even if they leave the site seeds have been planted, and who knows where that will lead in the future.
I personally find this kind of neutral approach to be more appealing and effective than to set up an 'apostate' barrier that would prevent JWs from reading on.
I also believe that in the long run, more Witnesses will leave the Organization and stop making contributions as a result of articles like his, rather than make more contributions. (But not necessarily in that order; as for me I stopped making contributions long before I left.)
-
King Solomon
Free at last said:
Cedars has already made it clear that he does not appreciate your criticism KS. Why not just ignore his posts and avoid clicking on his links if you don't like sensationalism. Head to JWFacts if you're looking for something more factual.
Uh, because JWN is a discussion forum?
You, I, Cedars, or anyone else is free to read or ignore ANY post, just as they wish. My comment wasn't directed at Cedars, but to the other readers of this topic who have (and will) engage in this topic on JWN, just like for any other thread.
(and it wasn't even 'criticism', unless you think considering consequences is somehow critical? Funny how you didn't jump on Scott77 for that, as if there's a "don't DARE say anything that might displease Cedars on ANYTHING!" policy on JWN? )
It's unfortunate that thread titles cannot be changed; this one could definitely be reworded to better reflect the actual state of the Conti case right now. Bugger.
No need to make excuses for him: Cedars made it perfectly clear he's not interested in changing the erroneous claim (as seen in the title or as found on his site).
Cedars said:
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...?In a defamation lawsuit (libel, with malice), that would be considered the classic, "If THEY can do it, why can't I?" defense, AKA "you'd be better off pleading guilty" defense.
Those words above make it clear that he's not worried about the truth of what the legal documents actually say (despite JT, who is a lawyer, telling him what they actually say); he prefers instead to take a cheap shot at the Society and go with his fiction.
Cedars said:
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.As the old saying goes, the road to Hell may be paved with good intentions, but it's still going to Hell.
Fact is, people who are struggling with separating from JWs are NOT HELPED by being fed hyperbole, exaggerations, and outright lies. I'm thinking of posters like MsGrowingGirl20:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/240184/1/I-didnt-take-your-advice-and-this-is-the-result
She's the latest example of someone who is struggling to break free of JWs, and looking for valid justification and arguments to use to convince not just the JWs, but herself.
By feeding her with falsehoods, hyperbole, and groundless wishes based on what some HOPE will happen, they actually end up doing people like her a greater DISSERVICE, esp if they end up relying upon fallacious premises (eg "WT is on the verge of financial collapse, and had to put Patterson on the line") as a basis of a discussion with a JWs who can read. That claim is EASILY DISMANTLED and disproven, and then she's left wondering what OTHER lies apostates are spreading, so she stays with the JWs after her "evidence" is rapidly disarmed and defused.
In fact, all the JW debater would need to do is actually READ the court document (which was offered as evidence to support his claim on his site) to see that it's actually saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of his claim, and actually serves as EVIDENCE AGAINST his entire premise:
Here it is, have a look:
(3) The Church Defendents have more than adequate assets, including the Patterson, New York property, from which they could satisfy the judgment if paid on appeal.
So there you go: they're NOT claiming that paying the judgment would push them over the brink, or they're on the verge of BK, etc. That's a FAIL.I'm willing to grant that he originally wrote the article in good faith, and made a layman's mistake by not understanding the legal terms in the document.
But the statement above challenges that assumption, as it demonstrates actual malice, with intent to harm reputation since the truth was pointed out. JT can explain the significance of "libel per se, with actual malice".
The problem is, this trait is not new: we've been down this road, oh so many times before, with other claimed "contradictions" (YouTube takedown policies for DMCA, Anonymous hacking attempt of WT, Sparlock the Wizard and the "magical elements" Awake article, the ASL masturbation video, the recent misunderstanding of what the word "should" means (Awake article on changing religions), and now, declaring the keys to Patterson will be handed over to CC if they lose on appeal). "Sensationalist" is being kind; "liar, liar, pants on fire" is closer to the truth, which is easily proven.Like I've said before, there's PLENTY of valid evidence on which to base criticism of WT practices and beliefs, which are enough to convince of their duplicitous "forked tongue" deceptions, use of 'weasel words', and at times, YES, even lies. With all that on the table, there's no one need to resort to writer's embellishment and fabrications (if we're being kind) or outright defamation and lies (if we're being honest).
Sure, it's fun to go with the sensationalist "The Sky is FALLING!" angle, but it's dangerous as it relies on lies, and risks the credibility of the entire site being damaged, dismissed as a bunch of cranks, nut-jobs. It's one thing if it were contained solely on his site; another if it's here.
THAT'S why I felt compelled to post in this thread: simply so future readers who DO know better and aren't easily misled can realize we're not all willing to lie for an anti-JW agenda.
-
Aussie Oz
Whatever the game the WT legal eagles are playing, regardless of Cedars thoughts on the matter, I seriously doubt the Judge or Conti's team will have the wool pulled over their eyes.
I guess this is what happens when ordinary people try to undertand the law...It's not designed or worded for us to get a grip on. The law is an ass.
oz
-
soft+gentle
both sides can use theocratic warfare strategy imo KS. At least on this site cedar's "theocratic warfare strategy" will be questioned and he will take steps to modify his speculations. The society simply silences questioners. I think that cedars journalism is healthy for this site provided he lets us debate what he says.
I can think of more than a few jounalists who have helped bring down unpopular governments/organisations. Jean Paul Marat comes to mind.
from wiki
In September 1789, Marat began his own paper, which was at first called Moniteur patriote ("Patriotic Watch"), changed four days later to Publiciste parisien, and then finally L'Ami du peuple ("The Friend of the People"). From this position, he expressed suspicion of those in power, and dubbed them "enemies of the people". Although Marat never joined a specific faction during the Revolution, he condemned several sides in his L'Ami du peuple, and reported their alleged disloyalties (until he was proven wrong or they were proven guilty).
-
cedars
King Solomon. I don't like you. I don't read your posts, I just scan through them to see if there are any insults. Congratulations, your latest post is free from insulting words so I will just ignore it. How you've managed to get away with the number of insults you've hurled at me already without censure is a puzzle to me, but it's not my site. I'm just a guest who needs to share a room with a bully whenever I come online to try to help people.
I've made it clear some time ago that I'm not remotely interested in your opinion. You have a twisted, litigous, over-complicated way of looking at things - especially information that portrays the Watchtower in a damaging light. You try to provoke me into discussions that you know will wear me down.
I really have NO idea what your issue is with me. We first clashed over the Anonymous debacle (in which, I accept, my enthusiasm was somewhat misplaced), but since then you have hounded me on every important topic and adopted a default position of contradicting anything I do or say. This is NOT going unnoticed by the community.
I've had several PMs and emails from various posters, many of them known to you, telling me to ignore you and expressing varying degrees of frustration at the poor attitude you bring to this forum. Your argumentative, patronizing approach and apparent bewildering obsession with shooting me down at any opportunity is not winning you fans. I have to ask, why are you doing this?
For example, you submit reams and reams of argumentation claiming this is NOT a contradiction...
I'm fairly certain that if any other poster had submitted the above image you would have completely ignored it, but because it's me you need to try and find a clever way to counter my assertion that this is a clear and blatant contradiction, which it is.
You claim that I am a coward for remaining an active Witness for the sake of staying in contact with my family rather than leaving. In saying this, you not only insult me and my attempts to maintain a relationship with MY family, you also insult a countless number of other posters on this forum who have adopted exactly the same position because of their families. You show no compassion or regard for the plight of inactive ones, or the damaging consequences of shunning, whatsoever. In taking this bizarre stance, you show yourself to be seemingly devoid of any compassion or humanity. In labelling faders as cowards, you defend shunning and make it sound not all that bad.
Here's a thought - if I'm such a coward for not "coming out" and disassociating myself, then what is your reasoning for hiding behind a pseudonym? If I were in your position of never actually having been a Witness, I wouldn't think twice about putting my real name out there for all to see (abandoning "cedars" altogether) and using my name and photograph on every website I contribute to. You are IN that position, and yet you hide behind a pseudonym whilst refusing to show your picture - why is that? In calling me a coward for not revealing myself when you seemingly have that opportunity yourself, you are not only insensitive and insulting, you are a hypocrite to boot.
On the ASL masturbation issue you used the pages of this forum to intimidate me, claiming that the Watchtower Society could easily come after me and going into lengthy detail as to how they might hunt me down in an apparent attempt to intimidate me into silence. The whole masturbation debacle was a classic example of you reacting with fury at those who were poking fun at the Watchtower, turning on such ones with venom and making the bizarre accusation that any mockers were actually poking fun at deaf people, and not the Society. It was a classic example of you flinching and going into defensive mode whenever the organization comes under attack - which is exactly what you've done with this latest development in the Conti case.
As to my reporting on the Patterson / bond issue, I have amended my article to reflect some of the observations of other posters, whether I agree with them or not. I've also fixed clear errors on my part, and slightly reworded the title on the article itself. Despite my having made amendments, you now refuse to point to a single paragraph that is wrong or over sensationalized. It is difficult to accuse me of over sensationalizing anything when I say words like the following in my article...
Before reading further in this article, I would encourage you to download the motion filed by Watchtower by clicking onthis link.By all means, familiarize yourselves with the contents, and please consider anything I write in this article as my own observations and speculation in regard to this development.
and
I am no legal expert and can only interpret what I read according to my own limited understanding, so I am willing to stand corrected if I unknowingly misinterpret the precise wording used in the court documents.
and
Again, if I am wrong, and things are not as serious as I suggest, then I am willing to stand corrected. However, I believe it is important to allow my readers to hear both sides of the argument, and form their own opinions.
Apparently, this is not enough in your narrow-minded view, and I am still a sensationalist and attention seeker.
For the record, even though some are pointing to the bond premium as the reason for the "irreparable harm and hardship", and the future difficulty in recovering it if Candace loses, I have strong reasons for believing that the Society IS pleading poverty for two main reasons, both expressed in the article that you criticize without being bothered to read.
- The use of the word "immediate" - why would paying the bond premium on November 15th cause "immediate" harm to the Society if they ONLY need to think about reclaiming it once the appeals process is over many months from now? Even the Society's lawyers wouldn't be foolish enough to second-guess the outcome of the proceedings in their own submitted court documentation, so why use that word "immediate" when the outcome is yet uncertain? I believe it is because the payment of the bond premium puts the Society on the "road of no return", with the bond payments themselves following soon thereafter. It is the bond that is the main issue, and the payment of the premium just gets the ball rolling.
- Reducing the bond amount - this is a clear element of the Watchtower's motion. They are saying "either let us pay the bond in property, or reduce the bond amount" (there is a $6 million dollar difference between the award and the bond total). If the payment of the bond is no problem to them, but this is a mere technicality and they would simply prefer to pay it in property, then why are they making such a big deal about getting the bond amount reduced?
I'm not saying my interpretation is the ONLY conceivable interpretation (in the dogmatic manner that you present your arguments) - I am merely saying that I personally think it highly likely that the "irreparable harm and hardship" comment indirectly refers to the payment of the bond itself. People are welcome to disagree and form their own opinions, and I have made this very clear on my revised article many times as shown above. You, on the other hand, present your arguments in a dogmatic way, and paint those who disagree with you as stupid fools.
Indeed, in the case of the above "contradiction" article you implied that I need to take English lessons from other posters on the forum. This is another tactic of yours that I notice you frequently employ - trying to cause division. You are trying to set me against other posters by pointing to them as being superior to me - trying to stir in me the same jealousy that you seem to be completely overcome with.
You frequently refer to JWfacts.com as though it is the only ex-JW website that is factual or has your approval for publishing anti-Watchtower information. I believe that you are trying to bait me into saying something derisory against Paul's site in an attempt to cause controversy, but you will have no such luck because I am good friends with Paul and think his site is wonderful. JWfacts.com played a substantial role in helping me out of the organization, so if you want to try and turn me against Paul I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.
In fact, as I recall, I recently posted a thread praising Paul for using a fantastic quote to demonstrate the Society's shifting stance on what toys parents should allow their children to play with - but even THIS you needed to take issue with, turning a simple informative thread into a six-page argument...
The irony, of course, is that you hold Paul aloft as the unattainable gold standard of presenting information whilst criticizing his use of a quote in your attempts to undermine me! So you're not just confrontational and argumentative - you're also inconsistent.
Put simply - you are clearly hounding, baiting, and trying to provoke me at every turn. I have to ask, why are you doing this? You have been on the forum for only three months and in such a short space of time have singled me out as your ultimate nemesis, someone to be brought down at all costs. What is your problem? The only problem I can think of is that I am one of the most vocal opponents of the Society, and a strong believer in activism. You are anti-activist, and believe that everyone should just silently roll over and let the Society do whatever the hell they like. You are in a small minority of people on this forum who believe that, just because you have intellectual freedom from the mental vices of a damaging cult, those who are inside and having their lives ruined can rot - unless they can somehow become as clever as you are, with no help from you whatsoever. That's not my approach at all, and because of this you relentlessly go after me.
You hate me for my articles. You hate me because I am trying to do something. You don't praise me for the articles that I get 100% right, first time (yes, they do exist) - instead you berate me for the few articles that I need help on. Simply put, you want me to quit writing articles and trying to help people out of a damaging cult. Well, I won't - certainly not to appease someone who has only been on this forum for 3 months and has a clear agenda to wear me down.
I will always struggle to understand what makes a retired doctor, presumably somewhere between 50 and 70, wake up one morning and think, "Hey, I've just remembered, as a kid I NEARLY became one of Jehovah's Witnesses! I think I'll just join a JW forum and impress everyone with my expert knowledge of a religion I was never even a member of!" Something SERIOUSLY doesn't add up there. Even so, you are in a fantastic position to hide any significant details about you, but lambast people like me who are more open and who you therefore know more about.
So by all means, continue your bizarre agenda of trying to undermine me and contradict me at every turn. You've already violated Posting Guideline 1 on numerous occasions with your insults and provocations towards me. It's only a matter of time before you get lazy and say something that will come to the attention of the mods, or better still, Simon.
I can't say I'm not looking forward to that day.
Cedars
-
soft+gentle
- excuse me while I choke (edit) with laughter
