AAWA, J M____ E______, and me

by zed is dead 577 Replies latest members private

• 

  *lost*

  Can someone just copy and paste Juan's piece - I can't do it x

  There is an AAWA soical Club on Facebook. - 169 members.

  It says - open group - anyone can see the group, who's in it and what members post.

  It also mentions JWN as being responsible for the hiccups there - isaac j harris. - that was sunday.

  Julia B Douglas is in charge of everything to do with the group. Setting it up, adding admins etc.

  then there is a another facebook page/group? Association of Anti Watchtower Activists.

  founded march 7th. there was some activity, then nothing. it's open. It says it's just a page. directs to AAWA.co

  and i love everyoooooooooooone - i'm a hippy ... especially Marvin - wonder what your voice sounds like. ?
• 

  EdenOne

  Even ONE person added without their consent is an ISSUE; Even ONE person outed as a result of this is a TRAGEDY. Are we discussing the inherent value of a human life here...?

  Eden
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  “Secondly, you won't win any friends in the peanut gallery by avoiding a reasonable request with complicated appeals to Latin logic.”

  Besty,

  There is no such thing as “Latin logic.”

  I’m not here to win friends.

  “Thirdly, I have provided evidence:…”

  I’ve seen evidence of some individuals added to a Facebook page without their consent.

  I’ve seen no evidence that this was done to upwards of 260 people. That may or may not have occurred. I don’t know. But if it happened it’s not been proven.

  “Lastly, I note your obfuscation - let me know when you are ready to ask AAWA for a simple answer to a simple question.”

  People should not use words they don’t understand.

  It’s not obfuscation to reject a response that shifts burden of proof. Maybe you should take check out an English edition of a basic book on logic.

  In the meantime I'll inquire of what I want to inquire of, as should you.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  besty

  A note on where the burden of proof lies here.

  In Marvin's world of perfect logic, Supreme Court grade evidence and mathemetically sound proof, because I have made a claim that Julia Barrick Douglas, Jo Buel Jensen and J Mason Emerson added 800 people to a FaceBook Group, I now have to prove, with evidence acceptable to him, that the 800 were added without consent. The latter 2 words sneaking in somewhere - I have asked him where I said 'without consent'.

  Although I have provided evidence that I was added without consent, my wife was added without consent, numerous others on JWN have said they were added without consent, it is manifestly easier to add without consent than seek consent, and most importanly AAWA have not contradicted my claim and those of others.

  When I asked Marvin to check with his buddies at AAWA if they had obtained consent, to quickly resolve this simple question, he plays the 'shifting burden of proof' card.

  You decide.
• 

  Tylinbrando

  OMG leave Besty alone about that Marvin. I've explained the proof from the AAWA Group page itself. Every member's name says who added them. A bunch of people here have confirmed it was done without their consent. That is Facebook protocol and it is more than logical to state 1000 members were never given the opportunity to accept or decline an email invitation in less that 12 hours by 3 people. THEY WERE ADDED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT

  start the damn group over already.
• 

  besty

  In the meantime I'll inquire of what I want to inquire of, as should you

  noted. Google 'confirmation bias' for details - 'a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs'

  I’ve seen no evidence that this was done to upwards of 260 800 people. That may or may not have occurred. I don’t know. But if it happened it’s not been proven.

  so are you going to ask AAWA?

  the question that dare not speak its name:

  @Marvin Shillmore - Given your hotline to AAWA please simply ask Julia Barrick Douglas, Jo Buel Jensen and J Mason Emerson whether they sought consent from the 800 people they added.
• 

  Simon

  This is silly, people are now arguing over semantics of words and comments combined from different people and it's fruitless.

  We know JDB added a lot of people, at least one / some of them without their consent.

  Agreed?

  Now let's stop the silly "who can quote the most latin" because we don't speak that crap anymore. If you want to communicate then use the language of the day (no, not Chinese !!).

  The proof is simple. If they did not add the people without consent then why would they ever be talking of 'contacting people to check' and that being too much work? If they knew they had already checked then that makes no sense, therefore, they didn't check.

  It's clear to everyone. This isn't Roe vs Wade, lets get some perspective.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Even ONE person added without their consent is an ISSUE; Even ONE person outed as a result of this is a TRAGEDY. Are we discussing the inherent value of a human life here...?

  Eden

  Exactly the point. While Cedars, and latterly Marvin, prance around demanding proof that people are being harmed, real lives are being hurt.

  How arrogant and how stupid do you have to be to think a simple Facebook page is more important than averting harm to the people you are claiming to want to help?
• 

  Dismissing servant

  "asserted: "Julia Barrick Douglas added 263 without their consent.""
  Is this in any way hard to understand, Marwin? Do you even know how Facebook-groups work? Do you know the possibilities to add people to a gruop?
  If it's a secret group you have to be added by someone. The very existence of the group is secret to outsiders. You cannot apply for membership in such a group, as an outsider you will not even reach the groups Facebook page. Thus members have to be added. The problem is that some members added hundreds of people over one night. Probably by just clicking their friends list. This is the security problem.
• 

  besty

  It's clear to everyone.

  clear to everyone except Marvin - its tiresome.