by zed is dead 577 Replies latest members private
Marvin,
You are proving yourself to be a total ring muscle on this thread. My proof is that I WAS ADDED TO AAWA WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR PERMISSION. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THEM HOW THIS MONUMENTAL FUCK UP HAPPENED. And you, since you appear to be their talking prison bitch!
I do not have to prove jack shit to you or any other pompus windbag in AAWA!
zed
It's like calling someon an idiot, then demanding they prove otherwise.
Well I for one REFUSE to prove to anyone that I'm not an idiot !!
Can no one think of anything better to talk about than AAWA? If you all hate them so much, why keep talking about it?
-
“Julia force-added me and several of my friends without permission.”
fizzywiglet,
How did Julia force add you? Please explain.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin, since you have NOT read all the information, and have said that you are talking to an AAWA member behind the scenes, then you are not in possession of all the facts.
Are you saying that Rebel8, Dagney, Zed and others are LYING?
All the above have verified that they were force-added without their knowledge.
OY!
t
Marvin,
Apparently you are totally ignorant and disingenuous with your comment to fizzy:
How did Julia force add you? Please explain.
I will respond for that, she hit a fucking button, you dumbass!
zed
The defense of the AAWA reminds me of an excelent post made by Duncan some time ago. Here it is:
The meat of it is the following:
The writer said that the demeanour of the minister that day brought to mind a boy he remembered, back in his schooldays, who had been accused of stealing another boy's chocolate cake. In his desperation to bluster his way out of the difficulty, the boy put up a spirited and aggressive defence:
"First of all, there NEVER WAS any chocolate cake !
...And in any case, there's no evidence that the chocolate cake ever got stolen !
...And in any case, it wasn't ME who stole it !
...And in any case, he TOLD me I could take it !"
At the risk of labouring the obvious, the point here is that any one of those lines of defence might work, and be perfectly reasonable to plead. Stick with one line of defence, and you might lose the case, but at least you'll be left with some shred of dignity and honour.
But employing them all, jumbled together in a ludicrous self-contradictory heap simply invites suspicion, disbelief and ridicule. And rightly so.
"First of all, there NEVER WAS any chocolate cake ! (NO one added any names)
...And in any case, there's no evidence that the chocolate cake ever got stolen ! (Prove that someone added you without permission)
...And in any case, it wasn't ME who stole it ! (It was others not affiliatted with AWAA, they also set up another Facebook page)
...And in any case, he TOLD me I could take it !" (These people are on other Ex JW page, so why are they whining about this one?)
And the comaprisons go on and on and on.......
AAWA has made public statements that anyone who has been wronged by them to contact them so that they can be questioned about details.
The stance from AAWA is that not one person of whom has been wronged by them has come forward to discuss what happened.
SO it appears that we are at an impass because the people with first hand knowledge are refusing to talk to eachother.
Dagney did contact them. They said they couldn't tell her who added her, but gave her Rick Fearon's and Danny Haszard's names as people who "potentially" added her and implied that they were the biggest culprits (that has now been proven untrue - in fact, somebody inside the group has already stated that Rick and Danny didn't force-add anybody to the group. So gee, they deliberately chose people along the more extreme side of the spectrum to blame, which tells me AAWA is fully aware of how nuts its actions are).
They also wanted to know why Dagney is OK with having other ex-JW friends and being on other ex-JW communities but not theirs ("waaaaaah, why don't you like us?!") And you know what? That's absolutely none of their business. She chose those other groups and friends. She did not choose them. Then they wanted to act like everything was OK because she left before she was potentially "harmed" - never mind that there are still people in there who have no idea that they were added. Never mind that a few days later, somebody got outed, disinvited from his brother's wedding, and now they're sniffing around trying to form a judicial committee.
With villifying and rudeness like that, are you really surprised that people don't want to bother contacting them directly? Giving them their personal email address? Giving them more access into their personal lives? With AAWA's utter lack of response thus far, their claims of "investigation" are B.S.
Here is as good a place to discuss it as any. "Shut up, don't talk about it publicly on JWN, and instead email us privately so we can insult you and then claim that we 'investigated'." Yeah, that's totally legit.
How did Julia force add you? Please explain.
If you bothered to read the other threads, you would have learned that the group was "OPEN" for a time, and people were able to just add their friends. Perhaps you should gain a basic knowledge of Facebook groups BEFORE you start demanding that others explain it to you.
As a facebook group Administrator, I can vouch for the fact that in an open group, any member can add any one or all of their friends to said group. Do you get it now?
Really, it may be wise to stop the victim-blaming!
tal
-
“…this is all about failure to protect confidentiality.”
talesin,
From what I can tell this discussion is about whatever responsibility AAWA bears regarding disclosure of personal information. Secondarily there is the issue of what can and should be done in response.
No one denies there is bona fide reasons why associates and previous associates of Watchtower have need for protecting their privacy.
In the meantime Watchtower keeps clocking hours on unsuspecting folks. I’m happy to say I haven’t let this day pass without giving that my first attention. I published a new article on my blog.
Marvin Shilmer
