Oops,
cantleaves last post is gone.
zed
Problems with the "Bogus AWAA Fan Page"..
by OUTLAW 447 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
HintOfLime
Juan Viejo:
Among those who "joined" were several names that I did not recognize at all. But some I did and knew that they would not be expected to join a group like ours. There were others who were very evangelical and also some who I would consider to be Watchtower apologists who showed up on the list. Many others seemed to have no connection to JW activism or discussion whatsoever. I wondered why all of those types of persons would be joining our group.
So in summary:
- The AAWA created a list of ExJw's, and added them to a group without their consent.
- That list was also provided via the member list to other people - people who were not recognized, to people they recognized as Watchtower apologists, and people who were not interested in JW activism.
- The AAWA's repsonse is to conclude that there is no risk and not close or remove the people they forced into their group. (We are too lazy to help the people we screwed over, and we want our Facebook group to look awesome with lots of people in it! )
Maybe as a followup act the AAWA should:
- Create a list of ExJW's
- Put the list into envelopes, and mail it to the Watchtower and congragations near the ExJW/Fader's!
- Conclude that there is no risk.
- Lime
-
fizzywiglet
Seconded, Malvinas and Dismissing Servant! (Yay, one of my posts opened up so I get one more in before my post limit is up, haha). I have met Juan personally. He's a good guy. I consider him a friend, along with one other person on the AAWA board. I think he's trying to be honest here, and he's a better calibre of person than what he's been handed to deal with.
I want to re-iterate this part of Juan's statement, from all the way back on page 2. Cedars is saying there is absolutely no evidence that any of the force-added people are still at risk because the group has been made secret again (after being made open):
* * *
"Among those who "joined" were several names that I did not recognize at all. But some I did and knew that they would not be expected to join a group like ours. There were others who were very evangelical and also some who I would consider to be Watchtower apologists who showed up on the list. Many others seemed to have no connection to JW activism or discussion whatsoever. I wondered why all of those types of persons would be joining our group.
Then I noticed as I scanned through the names that one person in particular seemed to be referring the majority of these unknowns. At that point I brought my concerns to the attention of the other advisors and the officers of AAWA. Their first reaction was that this was not necessarily a bad thing. After all, we welcomed support from every source and our doors were open to all. That is how I also felt some 12 hours before - but that morning I was literally panicked by the problem we were facing.
At that point Bo had to make a decision about what to do with our Facebook page and we all agreed to let him just go ahead and make it "open to all."
* * *
So: There you go. Absolutely no dispute; straight from the horse's mouth. People were force-added who were Watchtower apologists, moles, or not even ex-JW activists at all. Then they inexplicably OPENED UP THE GROUP for an indeterminate period (so yay! Anybody could join, open season for even more moles and apologists and ex-JW elders!) before making it secret again.
Those people are still in the group, with access to 1,300 names, at least 1,000 of which did not choose or consent to be there. AAWA hasn't done the single, easy thing that would protect those force-added (as well as the polite, ethical thing, because they want to keep their group count up. They know if they start over, without padding their numbers, it'll be nowhere near the "viral phenomenon" they were claiming).
When Cedars says there is no risk, he is lying. Pure and simple. And what's worse, he knows it.
-
slimboyfat
Cedars: evidence? rebel8 says that she was outed by being added to this group without her consent. Her word is good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?
-
DT
It sounds like this "secret" group has over a thousand members and every one of those members can see who is in the group, even though some were added without their knowledge. This is still an unacceptable risk. If it can't be fixed, then it should be shut down and started fresh. I assume you can start a secret group that has to manually approve new members. That may be the only way to avoid this problem.
-
soontobe
Millions Now Outed Will Never Die!
-
Dagney
Here is what rebel8 (sorry reb) said in the original AAWA announcement thread (sorry didn't grab the page#):
One request--it's not nice to add your Facebook friends to groups without their permission. I got added and outed.
If the groups was secret as cantleave/AAWA is saying, how did this happen.
See here's the thing...I think everyone wants to trust and believe what AAWA is saying. The problem is, the things that are said don't add up. I just want the truth.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM AAWA!! It's not right/good business to add people without their permission! You think it is okay, but we are telling you it is not!
(I need chocolate cake.)
-
Dismissing servant
"When Cedars says there is no risk, he is lying. Pure and simple. And what's worse, he knows it."
I know...this makes me sad and furious. Cedars has done ahuge amount of good things in exposing the WTS...I find this very tragic.
Still I consider Cedars a real british gentleman...I do hope that he will reconsider this.........fiasco. -
EntirelyPossible
Well, Cedars already said he was done with this thread. He thinks everything is just peachy now, is taking his ball and going home.
-
slimboyfat
Are those members who were added by other members going to be known as "overlapping members"?