King Solomon, you ARE a hypocrite, and I'm not going to let you forget it, or weasel your way out of the accusation with your twisted smokescreen logic.
By the way, I LOVE how you wait until I'm offline before making your posts so I can't reply immediately due to the time difference, particularly since I saw you online long before I went to sleep when I could have responded. Classy move.
So, here's my brief "article" on King Solomon. Bear in mind I can only make any edits for accuracy within 25 minutes, unlike my website, so I'll do my best to get it right first time!
WHY KING SOLOMON IS A HYPOCRITE
King Solomon believes faders are cowards, and that they should "move on with their lives" by "voting with their feet" - i.e. leaving the organization regardless of family. Note the following...
post 1908:
As far as the JW apologist crap: ever consider that it's petty, self-centered narcissistic individuals like you and BluePill who make it such a bitter, toxic environment in the JWs? Ironic, no? Many here on JWN are self-actualized enough to come up with an exit strategy, and simply vote with their feet and move on with their lives (novel concept, no?), putting on their big-kid undies and pay the price (DF/shun). Others fester in their mire, and try to drag others into their pain, or use ineffectual acting-out tirades that usually just blow up in their faces and hurts them when it's sloppily implemented.
Note the use of the derisory term "big-kid undies" to imply that anyone who stays within the organization because they're NOT prepared to "pay the price (DF/shun)" is somehow immature or not "self-actualized" enough.
Here's another more recent example of him mocking faders...
20th Oct, post 3012...
Cedars doesn't have the courage to come out of the Apostate closet in real life, being unwilling to pay the price of shunning in order to speak one's opinion against the JWs freely and openly. Instead, he's doing it anonymously. Gotta walk the walk, man.....
Note how KS claims that I lack courage by failing to "come out of the Apostate closet", instead doing my work anonymously for fear of shunning! So, yesterday, I pointed out that King Solomon is indeed a hypocrite for pointing the finger at faders like me who choose to remain anonymous when HE is in a position to use his real identity (having never been a Witness) and yet chooses not to do so.
I said...
If he wants to throw punches, he should be prepared to receive a few "home truths" in return, most notably the fact that he's a hypocrite for labelling faders as cowards for maintaining anonymity when he's apparently in a position to come clean as to HIS real identity but refuses to.
He said...
"Come clean" of what exactly? Were you going somewhere with that thought?
You think everyone on an internet forum who uses a pseudonym is hypocritical for not divulging THEIR actual IDs, like that's required for participation? REALLY? As if there's not MANY GOOD REASONS one might have to maintain anonymity (privacy rights of family members, ID theft risk, etc)?
NO King Solomon, I do NOT think that EVERYONE (exaggeration noted) on an internet forum is hypocritical for not revealing their identity. In fact, I support those who remain anonymous - especially when they are doing this for fear of being shunned by friends and family. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses (unlike you) and therefore I'm accutely sensitive to the painful consequences of shunning, both for myself and for others. That said, I DO think YOU are a hypocrite for implying that faders lack courage unless they "come out of the apostate closet", put on "their bi-kid undies" and "pay the price" whilst keeping your own identity a closely guarded secret!! This is something you do despite never having actually been a Witness, leaving you free from the threat of Watchtower-sanctioned shunning. That makes you a terrible hypocrite. Nice try at side-stepping the argument though.
King Solomon is also a hypocrite for writing pages and pages essentially accusing jwfacts of using a misquote on his website. Here is the thread...
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/236655/1/Fantastic-quote-on-jwfacts-Sparlock-article
As you will see, KS wrongly accused jwfacts of misquoting the 1994 Awake! magazine by not providing the words that followed after the quote (in the next paragraph!). Here is what he said on 17th September (post 2161)...
Now, if you find conducting objective analyses of the facts to be so objectionable, consider seeing if you can get reinstated into "the Truth": they ALSO have little regard for distorting easily-verifiable facts, which any JW would reasonably do by pulling up the 1994 Awake!, only to find the quote was cherry-picked, taken out of context by ignoring the admonishment to consider the stumbling effect on others. Quote-mining instantly undermines the author's credibility, whether the author is the WTBTS or a WT critic, as removing quotes out of context is a "foul" regardless of who does it.
With King Solomon's words about quote-mining ringing in our ears, let's look at him do exactly the thing he condemned on this very thread!
My words...
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?
King Solomon's response...
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.
So there you have it folks. King Solomon is ALSO a hypocrite because he completely ignores his own assertion that "removing quotes out of context is a 'foul' regardless of who does it".
A small "shout out" goes to slimboyfat for inadvertently drawing my attention to this mis-quote, thanks! And people wonder why I refuse to be interested in King Solomon's opinion... well now you know. He's not just abusive, insulting and patronizing, he's also a raging hypocrite. Little wonder he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction"!
KS, you have also "called my bluff" by asking me to prove that you have used "threatening" language per posting guideline 1. Interesting how you don't challenge my assertion on the "insulting" or "provoking" parts of that clause, most likely because you know you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
So, for the record, I submit my evidence your honor...
KING SOLOMON USES THREATENING LANGUAGE
Here is the dictionary definition of the word "threatening"...
threat·en (thr
tn)
v.threat·ened, threat·en·ing, threat·ens v.tr. 1. To express a threat against. 2. To be a source of danger to; menace. 3. To give signs or warning of; portend. 4. To announce the possibility of in a threat. v.intr. 1. To express or use threats. 2. To indicate danger or harm.
I have used the first dictionary on the search engine but other dictionaries express similar multiple meanings.
Most significantly, you will note that strictly speaking "threatening language" does not need to contain a direct threat, it merely needs to be threatening or ominous in nature, as in warning of harm or danger, supposed or otherwise.
Here is King Solomon's post from 7th September 2012 (no. 1865)...
Cedars, weren't YOU the guy worried about being outed by the WT (hence why you didn't challenge the YT takedown of the Sparlock video), so as to maintain your anonymity? It's likely YOU that should be worried, as he's not at risk of being outed.
You DO realize that by posting infringing copyright material on JWN, you've made it MUCH EASIER for WTBTS to ID you, than even by YT?
Here's how the scenario is likely to play out:
All downloaded video originally came from WTBTS page (or the DVD, which contains a similar legal notice) which says:
Legal Notices
Terms of Use
Site visitors may download copyrighted materials for their personal, non-commercial use only. By downloading such materials from this site, visitors agree not to post these materials on any electronic network, redistribute them without written permission, or share these materials in exchange for money, even if no profit is involved. Site visitors may not modify, publish, or participate in the transfer or sale of any of the content, in whole or in part.
Copyright
© 2012 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. All rights reserved.
This Web site is published and maintained by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc. Unless otherwise indicated, all text and other information contained in this Web site are the intellectual property of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc. All rights reserved.
That's a bog-standard legal 'click-wrap' EULA (End User Licensing Agreement). WTBTS in Brooklyn Legal Dep't owns the rights to the video footage, and anyone who uses the content agrees (whether they downloaded it there, or elsewhere from a mirrored site).
So WT assigns rights to WT Legal Dept in UK to protect their interests, and use the posts you made with GIFs, video links, etc (and your incriminating statements) to draft a request for a court order in the UK (privacy rights in UK are stricter than US, but you've given plenty of probable cause to get a court order from a judge), and WT UK serves the order on JWN, who HAS to give all information they have on user ID "Cedars" (name, address, IP/ISP, chat logs, post times, etc). That's not OPTIONAL on their part: they HAVE to roll over on you, in order to limit their copyright infringement liability (and if Simon is a subscriber, he's not necessarily in the loop: you violated the forum posting rules by posting someone else's content to the site).
Once armed with the ID info from JWN, WT UK Legal relays it to WT Brooklyn Legal to issue a DMCA order in the U.S. to obtain specific info to locate your ISP (based on DNS), and then they have YOUR name, YOUR address (if you were posting at home/work), YOUR phone number, etc. You may have been clever and used a VPN, proxy, or anonymizer (eg Tor), but those are rather useless nowadays: they were effective in the 1990's, but nowadays security experts have pointed out basic vulnerabilities that mean they offer only a minor nuisance to IT pros.
Once WT have your personal information, Brooklyn HQ makes a call to your local Elders, and next thing you know you're invited after a meeting to the 'screaming baby' room for a "friendly chat" for you to do some explaining.
Thus it's actually less of a challenge legally for WT to locate an infringer when they post content on JWN, because at least with the YT/DCMA regime, you could simply allow the video to be taken down and NOT file a counter-notice to maintain your anonymity. That's not an option here: the WTBTS doesn't need ANYONE'S consent to reassign rights and obtain a UK court order (and you've already given plenty of probable cause, by the self-incriminating statements made in this thread where you admit).
So then you're facing JC, PLUS the spectre of having to defend a DMCA copyright infringement lawsuit in U.S> Fed Court, with the prosecutor noting your legal defense posted above ("But everyone else did it!" In legal terms, that's worse than, "Your Honor, I'm guilty...." as it doesn't work when you're 5 with your Mom, and it won't work in Fed Court).
Even preparing a defense is going to cost mucho $$, and with a weak 'fair-use' defense as this you'd likely be hit with an adverse judgment. The WTBTS has deeper pockets than God. After you likely lose the case, you get to explain you were DFed for posting a video of an ASL translator saying, "masturbation" over and over, in a loop.... Then who's got egg on their face?
I challenge anyone not to find deliberately threatening or ominous language in the above post. It was clearly intended, not as a friendly warning, but as an attempt to intimidate me by claiming I should be "worried" and making me believe the Watchtower Society was coming after me due to my "self-incriminating statements". I therefore stand by my claim that King Solomon HAS contravened posting guideline 1 against me in full, albeit across various posts and threads, particularly since even HE won't challenge me on the number of times he has used "insulting" or "provoking" language.
Again, people wonder why I don't value his opinion?
Cedars
...OUTLAW
t
n)