PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

by Focus 173 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

Focus

Wise JT said:
Focus, Focus
OK.
[Bipolar]
calm down my man b4 your blow a head gasket, your anger is fully understood
I'm quoting this bit because virtually everything else you state here I 100% agree with!
I am not in the tiniest bit angry with F iend! What could have made you think that? I hate the sin, not the sinner. I am usually smiling when posting, by the way.
[big snip - all agreed with 100% by me]
[/Bipolar]
when [Friend] finally reaches the point were we are trust me on this one he will be one of the Most Damaging guys wt has seen in yrs
Quite probably! But he may be further from this point than you think. He could be here with MoMMa's blessing, quith I to the flying piglet.
[big snip - all agreed with 100% by me]
i find that a person is only willing to say MAMA is wrong and i must get the "He!! Up Out O here" smile when the time is right
What makes his position different is that he readily says the first!
the worst thing that can be done to a person with the background such as friend is to turn him completely.
Perhaps, but it may be necessary. His portrayed reasonableness (that crumbled in this thread - LOL!) does true damage here, lulling the dimmer sorts of proto-JWs (the Xandit Class, say)/hangers-on/novitiates/interesteds/those-about-to-get-"Da Knock". Such people may believe him, and join up or stay on where after absorbing the content of his perorations, when they otherwise would not.
Any of them may well be of that 1 in 500 Class - the Class of Those JWs who Die Unnecessarily each year through the blood-ban!
Friend is thus too costly, and therefore needs gentle refutation, reproof and - yes - even loving rebuke, all firmly but kindly administered by the likes of me and as observed over the last few days!
Sadly, and I mean that, it is uneconomical (in terms of our time) to convert these hardened spiritual criminals...
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE - AND YIELDS VASTLY BETTER RETURNS TOO!
Now, don't think I actually want to drive him off. Far from it! Ones like him serve as foils, and allow for demonstrations to be created for lurkerdom of the moral, ethical and theological bankruptcy of the Watchtower! Where would we be without them! We'd have to invent 'em! Danie11e? Danie11e? Wherefore art thou Danie11e?
we really have golden opportunity by having friend here
Only insofar as just stated by me, IMHO.
always remember WT has caught more members with Honey than Vineagar- why not try it out on them
I always do! It is just that my target is NOT the died-in-the-wool Cultie - sadly (for him/her), they ain't worth it. Resources and honey are finite, and I allocate them to "PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF THIS NASTY DISEASE THAT MASQUERADES AS A RELIGION"
just my 2
Take 5!! And, keep well!
JT
--
Focus
(Calm as Ice Class)
Focus

Said Friend:
Based upon the Society’s writings, if a JW “must not” involve secular judicial authorities against a fellow-JW for serious crime then you are saying that that is Society policy !
Listen, shouldn't you consider what is meant by POLICY where it is the "Policy" of a deceitful, weasel-worded, "let's-not-put-in-writing" GREAT WHORE that is being discussed? For such a beast is exactly the Watchtower.
Let us take the only sensible definition of "Policy" in this real world context: such things that are published to the R&F and which are stated sufficiently unambiguously (and whose very nature makes variation as practised impossible) as to prevent backsliding and weasel-wording and revisionism (though New Light may appear at any time, flashing crazily).
Now, taking that definition of Policy, my comment on the above quoted material is: "No, I am not."
So your further conclusions do not follow.
SixOfNine has already addressed this a page ago, btw.
To contend otherwise is nonsensical.
That you think that shows how ignorant you are of the way the whole scam works, at Brooklyn and downwards.
Can I interest you in a Bridge, Friend? Almost never used! I'll set it at a knockdown price, cash of course. And you are a proven legal expert (see below) so I'll have the title deeds for you to scan..
For you to later say that the Society has no policy against JWs reporting a murder (yes, murder!) that they happen to witness (that’s how they know its, yes, murder, stupid!)
Your legal understanding of the term "murder" is so revealing of your semi-educated JW-ility. It is not for the witness (nor is the witness so capable) to calmly and detachedly assess all of motive, degree (if any) of premeditation (qualitative and quantitative), provocation, sanity and mitigation, and without such assessment it is a "killing" and not a "murder". That is for a Judge and/or Jury (depending on the system) to assess. A witness can only witness a "killing". As this assessment occurs some long time after the event, and what is being discussed is the witness's short-term response (whistle-blow to whom (first)?, need time to think? etc.), the distinction is relevant.
Test your hypothesis, then. A certain well-known poster in arj-w shot dead another person who was unarmed. This act was witnessed by a third party. State there that a "murder" was witnessed, dear Friend, and see how expensive a legal action for libel can be.
See that large object protruding from your mouth? It resembles your foot, now, doesn't it? Or is your myopia such that anything further than the end of your nose has blurred into Watchtower pinkiness?
committed by another JW completely refutes your sweeping assertion!
You have a strange understanding of "refutes"
that will not change any facts.
Hey! Momma likes the word "facts" too! You share her understanding of the term, perhaps? LOL!
Also, since the assertion in question was yours (as opposed to mine, stupid!)
"stupid" replies: Does your "yours" mean "your's"?
, and since it regarded a prohibition (i.e., “must not”) then whether the Society has ever required Witnesses (elders or not) to report a crime is irrelevant to your assertion, which assertion of yours was the subject of my critic. Again, I muse, just how sound a thinker are you to not see this!
While I could answer this at several levels, as you are being sensitive to the volume of material being rammed at you (though you studiously avoid answering it and persist in your misconduct of following your demonstratedly irrelevant question trail), I'll just say a sufficient defense (were one to be needed: since the confusion arises again because of your attempting to use arguments fitted to an honest, aboveboard body where the word "policy" would not have to be so exactly specified, it actually isn't - but I'll indulge you anyway) is:
"Inconsistency is no stranger to the Society"
And how remarkably strange that this is news to you!
it defies the senses that you are unable to comprehend your error .. your nonsensical writing! Sheesh! What an idiot you are! And, BTW, calling a fool an idiot is not ad hominem if it true and relevant; and in your case it is both!
Wow, you are in denial. We understand: IT STINGS! IT STINGS!! WE JWs CAN FOUL-MOUTH IN THE MOST DISGRACEFUL WAY EVERY OTHER BELIEF (no matter how sincerely held) - but if anyone gets back at Momma, and...
And I'm truly sorry that you believe I do not measure up to your intellectual stature. So, how can I become intelligent like you and get an Eddicay-SHUN like your one, please? Do share. Start with your academic qualifications, please. If you are sensitive as to your identity, some concealment of names of institutions and dates is acceptable. And TMS does not qualify as college, sorry. I'm always ready to learn!
Of course we know you are really trying to help us get our case right, Mr Attorney-a-la-Barrack-Room. Where and when did you qualify, by the way?
--
Focus
(Hope This Helps! Class)
Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 17:17:26
JT

6 of 9 says
...true, but since these kings do not defile themselves with women, it (size) is of no real importance, in spite of what Ezekiel 23:20 says
#############
U R BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
SMILE LOL
JT
Focus

True enough, JT! When SixOfNine states
since these kings do not defile themselves with women, it (size) is of no real importance, in spite of what Ezekiel 23:20 says
I am comforted that I am notthe wickedest on this board.
Can someone bring "Friend" back, please? I have uncovered more juicy material, but need some intro gags... One would hope that the ex Forum Director of h2O would not stint with his brotherly assistance.
And yes - PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey.
--
Focus
(Serious Again... Class)
Friend

Focus
About the serious crime of sexual child abuse, you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings.
Your conclusion was:
A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW - if the matter is serious enough, and the JW is unrepentant, he/she will be disfellowshiped and then one will not be taking a "Christian" to court if one proceeds. But a JW must not act until the disfellowshiping happens, as the above article makes clear.
Since 1) your unconditional conclusion was based upon the Society’s writings and since 2) your conclusion was of a prohibition of reporting then 3) your conclusion was that the Society prohibits JWs from reporting serious crime as a matter of policy, that is, as [you] concluded from that w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers. As you later admitted, that article does not set such a policy! Get over it!
You can try and redefine "policy" all you want and it will not change your assertion quoted above, which assertion or yours is wrong so far a JW reporting another JW to legitimate secular authorities for committing serious criminal acts.
As for a person witnessing a "murder" (since you insist upon quibbling), that a "murder" had actually occurred was part of the question, stupid! That a "murder" (= serious crime) happened was germane to the question of your assertion about serious crime, so it was part of the question! Get it now? Furthermore, when people report a crime they report what they believe they have witnessed, stupid! In an instance such as I questioned you, a JW would report what they considered themselves to have witnessed, which in my example was a murder. Get over it!
As far as the volume of material being "rammed" at me, you are correct, your regurgitation’s are enormous! On the other hand, since the minute amount that makes any sense is unbelievably small, the volume is more than manageable. In all your verbosity you have yet to prove your original unconditional assertion (and you will not be able because it is not true), and that is the point.
I begin to think that you are the same multi-personality fool that posted here a few months back, the same one that Sevenofnine calls Mr. Pocket Dictionary (or something like that). If so, I guess the sting of your embarrassment remains. If not, then we have only to read this grand testimonial of yours here to see your latest shame.
I suppose this short message will precipitate another smokescreen of nonsense from you. So be it.
In conclusion, I had to laugh at this:
I said: "…since the assertion in question was yours (as opposed to mine , stupid!)…"
To which you asked:
Does your "yours" mean "your's"?
From where did you get that little grammar lesson, a pocket dictionary? WOW! Coming from my self-appointed personal grammar critic, what a faux pas!
Just for your edification, "yours" is the possessive for "you," which was my usage. Apparently you feel that "your’s" is some sort of a contraction, for what exactly I am not sure? Care to tell us?

Friend
Focus

How the blinkers keep working for you, eh, Friend?
you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings.
Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?
Sorry - WRONG!
I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates - and don't think we can't see your ignoring the "don't-put-it-in-writing" directives I quoted in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 or the keep-the-blood-change-hushed allegation in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 etc.
LOL!
Since 1) your unconditional conclusion was based [only] upon the Society’s writings .. w73 11/15 703-4
False! Bundle of stuff snipped as it is based on the abovementioned(wholly invalid) Proof by Assertion - LOL!
How many times do you try the same thing? Do you have no grounding in logic, propositional calculus or the like? Hilarious! Try Lie Algebraas a start (I'm not joking, it exists).
You can try and redefine "policy" all you want ..
No, I leave that to the Experts at Redefinition - YOUR FILTHY WHORELIKE SPIRITUAL-MOTHER, THE WATCHTOWER
As for a person witnessing a "murder" (since you insist upon quibbling),
Oh, so putting the word in quotes works everything, does it? A bit like "prophet" not meaning prophet at all, right? LOL!
[Sundry legal errors ignored, they have already been refuted by me]
stupid .. the minute amount that makes any sense is unbelievably small .. I begin to think that you are the same multi-personality fool that posted here a few months back, the same one that Sevenofnine calls Mr. Pocket Dictionary (or something like that). If so, I guess the sting of your embarrassment remains. If not, then we have only to read this grand testimonial of yours here to see your latest shame.
Your assertion is wholly false - but hey! What's new?
I am actually quite well known in H2O and have been for a while, albeit from after when you may have been fired as FD, perhaps... LOL!
>>Does your "yours" mean "your's"?
Just for your edification, "yours" is the possessive for "you," which was my usage.
Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand? Does a question imply an error? Can you read at all?? LOL! LOL! LOL! As you specialize in ambiguity - through design or otherwise - I felt the need to query the usage intended. Your answer was satisfactory.
How desperate you sound! But you entirely overlooked three-quarters of the traps, and that is something up with which some might be reluctant to put!
And DO keep the insults flowing, btw - it keeps me laughing, and shows how rattled you are by being so thoroughly exposed.
To all
Note how he refuses to address the DOZEN refutations above in this thread, and keeps blowing the same tired nonsense again and again. Be careful - MOTHER'S "SPIRITUAL-SYPHILIS" may be catching - and you know that does things "up here" as well as "down there"...
--
Focus
(He is such FUN! Class)
Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 22:59:40
Edited by - Focus on 6 March 2001 23:7:3
Friend

Focus
I said: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
You responded:
Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?
Sorry - WRONG!
So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?
You wrote:
I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates - and don't think we can't see your ignoring the "don't-put-it-in-writing" directives I quoted in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 or the keep-the-blood-change-hushed allegation in http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3 etc.
As written, your assertion is unconditional that JWs "must not" report a serious crime by another JW to secular authorities, and that assertion is not evidenced in that material you refer to. All that material does is demonstrate what I have already made painfully clear, that the Society does not instruct elders to encourage reporting. Please keep in mind that the original assertion is yours (yes, that is yours without an apostrophe), not mine. The burden of proof is therefore yours, not mine. That the Society does not encourage reporting to authorities does not evidence your claim that JW must not report.
However, you have expressed more than one falsehood about me on those linked threads. For example, at the link http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3, you wrote:
But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me!

Important areas or not, I have made no assertion that there is no difference between official JW policy and what is practiced by elders at a congregational level. If you feel otherwise then please feel free to evidence your claim of me!
For a fact local congregational elders do sometimes act contrary to various policies of the Society.
You wrote:
Note how [Friend] refuses to address the DOZEN refutations above in this thread, and keeps blowing the same tired nonsense again and again.

What you call refutations are no such thing at all because I have not asserted anything other than what your references indicate, that is, that the Society does not train elders to encourage reporting to secular authorities.
[ Remaining garbage snipped ]
What’s the matter, aren’t you going to continue your fine grammar lesson regarding "yours" and "your’s"? [[[ ROFLMAO ]]]
Regarding your faux pas, using the editor, as an after thought, you wrote:
Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?
Yeah, right!
Friend
Edited by - Friend on 6 March 2001 23:58:21
Focus

Friend stumbled:
I said: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
You responded: "Proof By Assertion YET again, eh? Sorry - WRONG!"
So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?
LOL! You can't read, can you?
My very next words were:
I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates
It helps if you can READ, doesn't it? Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself)..
LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, F iend! Does the penny drop?
However, you have expressed more than one falsehood about me on those linked threads
Oh, yeah? Let us see!
Friend claimed:
I have made no assertion that there is no difference between official JW policy and what is practiced by elders at a congregational level
Let us first be exact. What I stated was not "what is practiced by elders at a congregational level" but instead "congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS". Besides the obvious difference, local elders were not mentioned by me here. The overseers who act as go-betweens are responsible for a lot (inter alia, it is often they who interpret practice) etc.
Now, given that correction to your interpretation, let me remind you of:
expatbrit wrote: Are you referring to the WT's formal written policy, or to the WT's informal unwritten policy?
Friend wrote: When it comes to serious criminal actions, I am referring to the Society’s only policy.
Are we back to what is your (naive?) misunderstanding about the nature, meaning, import and value of SOCIETY "policy" (given the Society's track record)? LOL!
I have not asserted anything other than what your references indicate, that is, that the Society does not train elders to encourage reporting to secular authorities
"that is"?? My references demonstrate MORE than that: they demonstrate that the Society has, to some extent, encouraged a "ssssssshhhhhhhhhh" climate. Of course, I know that YOU KNOW that, which is possibly why I do not see any post from you in the http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3088&site=3 thread! Do the blinkers fit well, eh?
What’s the matter, aren’t you going to continue your fine grammar lesson regarding "yours" and "your’s"?
What "grammar lesson", F iend? I asked you a question as to which you meant (your earlier terminological and other errors having given rise to material ambiguity). You showed that - this time - you actually did mean what you had written...
Regarding your faux pas, using the editor, as an after thought, you wrote: "Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?"
Yeah, right!
What are you trying to say here? More deceit and smokescreening from you, eh? My editing (if any) is confined to correcting typos (e.g. bold/italics control, where the difference between the < > which is used for HTML (as in h2O posts) and the [ ] used here causes confusion; closing parentheses or highlighting controls, etc.), predate the reply and are made pretty immediately after the post (as the time stamp shows: I use a chain of anonymizing proxies, btw). Is your editing not of a similar nature? Do share! As revisionism is so rife within Mother, is it being unkind to suspect Friendly tendencies in that direction?
And - do answer the question. We haven't forgotten it, your smokescreen notwithstanding:
"Is there some part of a "?" that you do not understand?"
I do understand your embar^H^H^H^H^Hconcern.
Your desperation to find some tiny error in what I do (however irrelevant such would be, if it existed, to the discussion at hand) is so revealing of your agenda, your priorities - and your basic decency. What a kook and loser you appear - and how rattled, too!
Try and get this. The fact that I appear to be, in terms of logical and linguistic abilities, far out of your league is quite irrelevant - after all, the reader can see that I make every allowance for your demonstrated disabilities and incompetence. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THAT:
THOSE MOLESTED KIDS ARE STILL CRYING INTO THEIR PILLOWS...
"Get thee to the righteous side"
--
Focus
(Righteous Requirements Class)
Edited by - Focus on 7 March 2001 8:14:0
Friend

Focus
You do understand the meaning of “?”, don’t you?
Earlier I wrote: "…you based an unconditional conclusion upon the Society’s writings."
Afterward you responded:
Proof By Assertion YET again, eh?
Sorry – WRONG!
I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates…
I made an assertion, you then asserted that it was wrong. The question then becomes, what was wrong with my assertion?
1) Was I wrong about what you based your assertion on? No, for in fact you admit that you based your conclusion upon the Society’s writings, namely that w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers. That you also claim your “sure knowledge” as a basis does not refute my assertion because my assertion does not claim otherwise! So, since the part of my assertion dealing with your basis was correct then the remaining question is:
2) Was I wrong about the nature (unconditional) of your assertion, thus my question, “So then, are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?”
Your response to my question:
LOL! You can't read, can you?
My very next words were:
“I base it on writings, some of which I quoted, AND my sure knowledge of how the Society operates”
It helps if you can READ, doesn't it? Try and work out why the word "AND" was capitalized and emboldened by me in the original material (knowing, as I did then, your capacity to fool yourself)..
LOL! LOL! Your apparent lack of reading comprehension is STUNNING, [Friend]! Does the penny drop?
So, given your ignorant response, again I must ask, do you understand the meaning of “?”?
I also restate the question:
Are you saying that your assertions that, "A JW must not involve judicial authorities against a fellow-JW…" and, "a JW must not [involve judicial authorities] until the disfellowshiping happens…" are conditional? Conditional upon what? All I see is sweeping statements. Did you intend something less?
Care to answer the question this time?
Regarding your claim of me that:
But, but... "Oh So High Up" [Friend] said in the Pedophile thread that there was NO DIFFERENCE between Official JW Policy and congo-level Practice ON IMPORTANT AREAS .. and LIFE or DEATH sounds important to me! (At: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=3099&site=3)
My answer to Expatbrit does not evidence your claim of me because my answer only spoke of the Society and whether it had a policy or policies, NOT whether that policy (or policies) is practiced differently on important areas at the “congo-level.
Again, I ask that you evidence your claim against me. If you can do that then we will go on to some of your other claims.
Friend
LDH

I have purposely (!) stayed out of this exchange between a few rabid posters (LOL).
But I'd like to share an experience with you that confirms what both JT and Focus opine.
A sister had just moved into our congregation, and asked to speak with (let the reader use discernment, LOL) and a couple of other elders. She told them that she had witnessed first-hand her ex-fiancee murder someone. YES TRUE As she would NOT under any circumstances reveal who her ex-fiance was, (let the reader use discernment) was outraged with her suggestion that he absolve her of any guilt in this matter.
She refused to inform the police, stating that she 'couldn't turn a fellow JW in, it would cause too much reproach on the cong.' What the hell did she expect? (Let the reader use discernment) made it clear that morally and spiritually her responsibility was to turn the murderer in. The other elders did not agree, instead choosing to shield 'Momma' from any untoward media.
Can you imagine? This "sister" never turned him in. There is a murderer in at least ONE congregation here in the US.
That should scare the shit out of you, folks. She would rather protect Momma than human beings in her congregation. That attitude comes straight from 117.

PEDOPHILES are to WTS as flies are to honey?

Share this