Well, I just knew it was going to end up this way.
Too bad.
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
-
-
OUTLAW
Good Morning JWN..
Simon thank-you for putting an end to the trolling..
I`ve just gotten word this is really upsetting the Conti`s..
If it keeps up they will just walk away from all of us and I don`t blame them..
Everyone needs to calm down..
This has to stop Now!..
I`m waiting for verification on the letter Kathleen sent Cedars..
I`ll post my findings on this thread..
................................
... OUTLAW -
Scott77
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".
King Solomon For the record, here is my original thread from where KS quote from:
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.
This is false, KS. You erroneously misinterpreted my statement to continue your misguided, ill conceived attack on Mr. Cedar’s very informative and interesting thread and by extension, his character. No, this is unacceptable and I will never tolerate it. This is exactly what I meant by the “unintended consequence”, Strolls like KS who erroneously misinterprets poster’s statements to continue on their misguided, ill conceived attacks.
The ‘creditability’ they build as a result, is questionable. On the contrary, Mr. Cedar’s presentation strongly resonates well with my thinking as a lay person as are many posters here. Mr. Cedar, thank you for standing up to what you are doing. Your work is greatly appreciated and valued by many of us.
I have stated before, this is not a legal forum. Mr. Cedar is not an attorney and therefore, should not be expected to present work as such. I am very glad that KS and others have been deleted. This is a serious warning to you all strolls that your days on JWN will be short.
Scott77
-
144001
<<<< I am very glad that KS and others have been deleted. -- Scot77>>>>
I do not derive happiness from the deletion of any individuals from this forum in circumstances such as those that occurred in this thread, and I doubt that Simon enjoys deleting anyone from this forum over such circumstances, either.
The bottom line is, the article is inaccurate, and Cedars has not modified it to make it accurate. That's his choice to make, and none of us should be angry enough over this to get ugly with him or anyone else on this forum.
As I have alluded to in this thread, I have decided that I will avoid responding to posts about legal matters made by non-lawyers. I find that my efforts to clarify the law on this forum have offended some folks here and caused them to respond with personal attacks, etc.. There just isn't any up side for me in responding to this type of topic, and it appears that many here would prefer to believe/rely on false information.
Peace!
-
cedars
144001
The bottom line is, the article is inaccurate, and Cedars has not modified it to make it accurate. That's his choice to make, and none of us should be angry enough over this to get ugly with him or anyone else on this forum.
That's a lie. I HAVE modified it to make it accurate, just not to your satisfaction. Please remember who's article it is.
Cedars
[edit post: 144001 - you actually gave a four point criticism of my article, and I answered all of them, making one major change (to do with "precedent") and a couple of minor tweaks as a result. For anything I didn't change, I explained to you why I didn't change it, but clearly this wasn't good enough in your mind. Your response was rather vague, to the effect of "it's still wrong, but I can't be bothered helping you further." - rather typical of the criticism I've received from you and other posters who seem to have a problem with people like myself covering legal matters in a way that laypersons will understand.]
-
moshe
144001 is a lawyer? I guess I wasn't paying attention, when I was distracted by his ad hominems.
Cedars, that reminds me of a joke-
-
Justitia Themis
144001
The bottom line is, the article is inaccurate, and Cedars has not modified it to make it accurate. That's his choice to make, and none of us should be angry enough over this to get ugly with him or anyone else on this forum.
That's a lie. I HAVE modified it to make it accurate, just not to your satisfaction. Please remember who's article it is.
Wow...this thread has taken several interesting, but ugly, turns.
144,001, I understand what you are saying, but you can't have it both ways. Either you must either state your credentials (lawyer--probably practicing in CA.) to establish the authority of what you say, or remain non-credentialed and have your opinions subject to disagreement by Cedars or anyone else.
And, as you state, Cedars could still disregard it, but at least it would be with full knowledge.
-
moshe
Cedars, you do have some good information, but the world won't mind , if you take out time to enjoy your own life-- I spent a lot of time as an ex- JW activist and I was in the trenches fighting for justice- eyeball to eyeball with JWs. If I had known 20+ years ago, what I know about the JW mindset today, I would have just passed on that activist work.
-
cedars
On a serious note, if someone WOULD like to draw my attention to a genuine fault with my article as it stands that isn't purely subjective in nature, please either PM me, email me, or state it on this thread in a constructive and non-partonizing way, and I will do my best to change it.
This applies to any who may have offered suggestions during all the aggravation but who's suggestions I've missed due to being distracted by other posters.
BOTR has been in touch and seems happy with it. The article obviously contains many of my own personal observations and suppositions, but this is clearly stated and the reader is invited to download the court documents and reach his or her own conclusions.
Utimately this is my article, and I get the final say as to what changes are made. However, if something is manifestly wrong or misleading about this or any of my articles, I am NOT above changing it.
Cedars
-
cedars
Thanks moshe, your advice is well noted. The work I do isn't all that draining - only when certain individuals cause me unnecessary stress. I invest a great deal physically and emotionally in my work, so I don't enjoy seeing people trying to pull it apart unfairly, despite my willingness to correct errors.
I can certainly sympathize with the likes of Paul and Barbara who have been through this sort of thing themselves many times before, and who (I know in the case of Barbara in particular) limit their time on the forum as a result.
Cedars
... OUTLAW