A suggestion for discrediting the Society (page 3)

RR

TR

I'm sure some of our more articulate members will step up to the plate.

Well, that leaves you out!

discuss

My initial visit to this site was of course what
every JW has done, type Jehovahs Witness in Yahoo!

I know there is alot of bad infromation out there.
I hope to help clear some of this up.

I am not looking to battle anybody.
I do not see any advantage to this.

I am sure however sooner or letter I will
get involved in discussion that will go to far.

I think it is important to gain insight from everybody.
I will try and avoid those that seem to have an "agenda"
of hatred towards those who still serve Jehovah. From
what I have read, there are many on this board who were
simply no longer happy with the answers that JW's were giving
them. Fair enough. I would think that I would be welcome on this
board, considering there are quite a few questions about the
org. and the ones that can offer a different viewpoint are those
that are still in it.

dubla

dis-

you skipped a really important question there....here, ill refresh your memory:

are you an active witness, and if so, why are you visiting a site filled with what the society would consider to be "dangerous" material?

you do realize this is associating with apostates, as the society has brought out....in fact, its analogous to inviting apostates into your home, according to the wtbts. would you invite apostates in your home?

aa

discuss

I would not invite an apostate into my home, unless of course
it was a life and death situation.

I tend to think that most on this board are not apostates, for
example MavMan, and Fred Hall. Like I stated before, I will
avoid those that seem to have an agenda, as I am a newbie, I am
still learning. So I will not be associating with them. However,
I wouldnt consider news articles about the Society "dangerous material". And I have found a number of links on this site with
great news articles.

sidenote:
on another thread you mentioned someting about flame wars:
This is not the only board I am a member of. And I dont think nyt had a copyright on the statement "flamewars"

dubla

dis-

fair enough, we shall just play the wait and see game with your little facade. i do find it interesting though, that you say you are going to avoid those with an "agenda", and yet you intentionally try to start a flame war.....a seeming contradiction, wouldnt you say?

one more thing:

I tend to think that most on this board are not apostates, for
example MavMan, and Fred Hall.

if youve been lurking for two weeks, as you claim, then this statement is a complete lie. anyone who has been lurking for longer than an hour knows for an absolute fact that "most" (your word) on this board are in fact "apostates", and that fredhall and mavman are the exceptions to the rule. what is your definition of "most"? two out of every 200? lol.

aa

rem

dubla,

Your ongoing anti-troll anti-NYT crusade grows ever more tiring and pathetic. Jesus fucking christ! Give it a rest already.

rem

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

Seeker4

This thread has been hijacked a bit, but there are a couple of good points here. As we've been discussing in a few other threads, there is a real lack of leadership in the WTS right now, which has resulted in essentially a "reactive" style in dealing with problems. Quietly taking advantage of news events has been extremely effective for the past few years now. Cultivating a close and respectful relationship with the professional press has gotten us a long way in providing opportunities to reveal what the WTS is REALLY about.

A handful of people picketing has always been pretty pathetic. If you've seen them at Bethel or a convention, they've just reassured the rank and file that they are right, and this is "persecution."

If you could pull 1000 X-JWs and concerned JWs together for a silent or candlelight vigil at Bethel or something similar, THAT would get some attention. No stupid signs or ignorant screaming, just a nice dignified vigil with a few spokespeople. Would be interesting, but not very likely.

Then Carmel wrote: "Since yesterday I have been having an exchange with Wendy at the Oregonian in Portland. Essentially, she feels she needs to remain "neutral" and present a "balanced" story. My comment to her was in so doing, she inadvertantly was promulgating the party line of the JWs and that apparently reporting facts wasn't as important as opinions regardless of their veracity."

Sorry, Camel, but a good reporter will do exactly as Wendy has done. You're asking her to take a side in her reporting, which is journalistically unethical for her. The Code of Ethics adopted by the Soc. of Professional Journalists states: "Diligently seek out the subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

Accusing the reporter of "promulgating the JW party line" is absolutely not fair of you. She is totally obligated to give the Witnesses full opportunity to state their case, to "promulgate their party line" and to accurately report what they say. It is NOT a reporter's perogative to decide who's side of the story she will tell. A good reporter allows both sides to speak, and keeps her own opinion out of it. A good reporter cannot take sides.

In my work as a journalist I've had to cover meetings and events that presented views that disgusted me personally. I could not allow that to come across in my writing. Neither can Wendy at the Oregonian, and you do her a disservice to suggest otherwise. We need to respect the press for doing what they're supposed to be doing, not berate them for not taking "our side" of the issue.

S4

dubla

rem-

Your ongoing anti-troll anti-NYT crusade grows ever more tiring and pathetic.

thank you for your two cents. actually, it isnt a crusade, and bantering with nyt has been quite entertaining at times. as far as being anti-troll, id challenge you to show me where ive made a huge committment to fighting with trolls....in fact, if you search through all of my posts, youll see that most of my actual arguing is with "jws"(nyt, fred, yk, yoyo), and i almost always let the all out trolls be.

Jesus fucking christ! Give it a rest already.

im not sure where the unneccesary language and aggression comes from, do i even know you? it is your choice which threads you follow, and if you do not wish to read any of my posts, you surely have that freedoom, dont you? i find your outburst not only childish, but unwarranted, as this is a public forum, and who i deal with on here is really not your concern......but you do have the full right to speak your opinion, no matter how unimportant it may be to me.

aa

Celia

Discuss
I love that statement... seen it a few times on this board :

I will try and avoid those that seem to have an "agenda"
of hatred towards those who still serve Jehovah.

...those who still serve Jehovah...

By that you mean.......those who still obey the Watch Tower Society blindly...

<<<shivers>>>

dedalus

People who obsess about trolls puzzle me, too. It's somewhat like complaining about a TV show you hate to watch, yet you never miss an episode.

It isn't that all people who obsess about trolls are stupid -- some of my favorite posters here occasionally go on these troll crusades, cluttering otherwise interesting threads with a lot of nonsense about who posted what and when, so that the thread of the discussion is lost in all the childish squabbling. It can be fucking annoying sometimes, hell yeah.

See -- none of what I've written has anything to do with discrediting the Society!

Dedalus

A suggestion for discrediting the Society

Share this