AAWA has caused divisions and has lost the opportunity to be effective

by NoRegrets 162 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Simon

  Actually, jgnat, I think the responses to the important unresolved issues are:

  Claim: Remove everyone who was force added

  Response: Refusal (no explanation why)

  Claim: Consider removing the group and starting fresh

  Response: Denial that there is any risk (even when risk is explained)

  Claim: The organization registration may have broken the law

  Response: Silence (?)

  I think the facebook issue is the most damaging because it affects other people and is so so easy to fix. As they continue to promote it and refuse to even warn people, I've decided to put something on up here so people don't put themselves or their family relationships at risk:

  The Association of Anti-Watchtower Activists (AAWA)

  As I've said before, I believe that all the people involved with AAWA probably have the best of intentions but a few have let ego and reputations cloud ther ability to make decisions. It takes humilty and integrity to admit mistakes and rectify them. I know myself that stubbornesss and anger is much easier to pull off but doesn't engender as much support or respect.
• 

  Simon

  The Governing Body want me to forgive their mistakes too

  Although I don't think they admit to mistakes and so don't ask for forgiveness, I guess that's akin to being called Hitler so I'll accept Godwin's law satisfied - you win!

  So, take a bow - people will praise your name from the rooftops: "All hail Sebastious for he conducts a well argued and reasoned debate".
• 

  Simon

  Actually Simon I have been surprised by the amount of time u have spent responding on the same topic on different threads. But I realize it's part of the "Been there done that" scenario that you comment on.

  You yourself know when you made a good decision and when you made a bad one, but really just reaching ex JW's, or soon to be ex JW's is your goal.

  It's hard for some to take advice, or admit shortcomings. But any good leader knows when they need to shut up and listen to the troops. Hopefully this delusional folly can amount to something more than JWN threads, and non audited donations gathered from sincere ones.

  Yes, apart from reminding me that I've made lots of mistakes and continue to learn, they also manage to cause a ton of work managing the site this last week. Easy for them though: delete + silence.

  I'm still hoping that they sort things out and this can all go away. Although I'm hoping, I wouldn't say I was really hopeful though ...
• 

  RayPublisher

  I made a promise I would only be positive on commenting on this thread so here goes:

  • SIMON even if no one else does (lol) I LIKE YOU AND WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THIS SITE. It is a life saver to many of us.

  • I love JWnet! (Despite the PITAs)

  • I also love AAWA and think that it is a step in the right direction.

  Haven't we heard the old expression, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"?

  So let's all try and get along peeps!
• 

  Dagney

  Simon, I was hoping the AAWA subject wouldn't be locked and buried for the following reason. Again, I received a second email from another exJW who is visible on FB. She noticed more activity popping up from familiar names, but didn't think about it much until a few days ago. She came to JWN to see what was going on and found out about the mass add of names to AAWA, and sure enough, she was one of them. She asked to be removed.

  People come here to JWN to find info. Most of the times there are varying opinions, sometimes flat out wars. But at least you can usually find out what happened and based on the discussion, pro and con, make a personal informed decision.

  I could be wrong, but it sounds like there may be upward of 1000 people on the AAWA site that may not even know they have been added if AAWA did not notify them. Funny to call them members when they didn't even join. Like saying you won the election by the votes you added to put you over the top.

  I have good friends on AAWA, some I've known for 30+ years and love them all dearly. I say to them, "go crazy, knock em dead, good luck, take 'em out... "

  But this adding members without notifying, then blaming them for being in a like group is disrespectful and intrusive. Claiming the number as members is dishonest.

  Edited to add: Thank you Simon and Ang for providing JWN, and the hard work you do to maintain it. And I appreciate your input all along on this.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  Again, I received a second email from another exJW who is visible on FB. She noticed more activity popping up from familiar names, but didn't think about it much until a few days ago. She came to JWN to see what was going on and found out about the mass add of names to AAWA, and sure enough, she was one of them. She asked to be removed.

  Also see nicolaou's thread.
• 

  wha happened?

  I was going to mention him. He came back onto JWN and that's how he found out he was added, without permission, as well.

  So what's next? Baptizing the dead?
• 

  Dagney

  Oh, just noticed Simons thread. My thoughts exactly.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  I feel it is counter productive from some of the AAWA apologists here to continually take what they evidently feel is a higher ground by insulting the credentials and motives of the people who are questioning the legality of using a psuedonym in incorporation documents. The attitude is generally 'Are you an attorney? Then you don't know what you are talking about, so shut up'. I am privy to the email exchange with the ACC and know what questions were asked, and what were the responses. Though the ACC did reiterate that they are not an enforcement agency and do not get involved with legal matters such as determining whether or not criminal actions were committed, they do say the following:

  The Commission's constitutional role as a respository is limited to a determination of whether documents meet statuatory requirements for filing.

  Thus, as originally filed, the AAWA's documents were deemed satisfactory. That is, until the fact that the president was and is using a pseudonym was brought to their attention, they did not hesitate to mention that this was definitely contrary to their filing requirements.

  I hope those who are so adamant in claiming that nothing was done contrary to the ACC's standards are certain in what they claim. They should know, however, that to continually belittle and be combative towards those who have legitimate questions as to the pseudonym issue is only serving to bait us into taking this a step further and filing a complaint as the ACC has already asked one of us to do.
• 

  RayPublisher

  I think this whole FB hole has been plugged- I just added someone today and was immediately contacted by an AAWA admin and asked if the person knew they were being added and I confirmed that yes they did.

  No one is getting added without their permission. That was a one-time gaff wasn't it?