by ISP 22 Replies latest jw friends
I *still* don't see what was so bad about the thread that it had to be deleted. Bleep called Bill an Apostate and so Bleep needs to apologize? I don't think so.
Bill *is* an apostate. So am I. You may call me an apostate anytime you like. I'll be as offended as I am when I'm called a black man. I think whoever did it will probably now acknowledge that deleting the thread was a mistake and should never have happened.
The problem was the presentation. I would sincerely hope (and truly believe) that no parent with a child that has just been raped and is still wearing the same clothes (as in Bleep's illustration) would be running off to find an elder. And with all my heart I doubt that any elder seeing a child in such a condition would say go study your WT. The scenario was ludicrous. The solution Bleep provided was also ludicrous that immediately the mother would go to Bill Bowen.
No one on either side of this debate has ever suggested that victims and their families call Bill immediately after a child is raped. The advice has always been
GO TO THE POLICE
For Bleep to suggest otherwise makes a mockery out of the abuse issue and of the victims and their families. The insult was not to Bill but rather to the victims and their families
Now if Bleep really wants to discuss/debate this perhaps Bleep can come in here and explain why he is making his point in this manner. Perhaps he can expalin why he reposted the material . But I see he hasn't been around. So what does Bleep really want - to discuss and debate or just hurt people?
edited to add
I have it saved and from what I see the problem had nothing at all to do with calling Bill an apostate
Edited by - Lady Lee on 17 August 2002 11:51:52
Bleep presented the scenario of a child-abuse victim, with shredded clothing approaching the elders. His argument may have been valid, but he presented it as a joke. This would be grossly offensive to such a victim, of which we have many on this Board. A moderator removed the thread. Bleep re-posted it. I edited his post out for reasons I have discussed in the thread linked below.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=34739&page=2&site=3
If Bleep was looking for attention, he certainly won the day.
HS
Using the right to censor in this way, is out of line.
Bleep has a right to his own opinion, we don't have to share it of course.
Bleep has a right to his own opinion, we don't have to share it of course.
Yes, just as the Board owner has a right to his own opinion and of course we do not have to share that opinion.
Do you feel that all opinions, whatever they are about, whatever the subject, however they are presented, are acceptable for a public discussion Board? Though freedom of speech is a rightly protected treasure in most Western societies there are boundaries, for example, uttering racist comments, which are legislated against by law.
The Board owners, imho set very reasonable codes of behavior that they would like adhered to by any subscribers to this Board. Well, if these boundaries are challenged, do they not have the right to legislate against them. Is this so hard to understand?
Best - HS
I hate the WT!
I hate Bill B!
I hate the GB!
i hate bleep!
* singing*
"one of these things is not like the others,
one of these things in not quite the same,
one of these things will get your post deleted,
politicks - is one dangerous game",
Well i am hardly convinced about the deleting of 'Bleeps' post. If Bleep posts some garbage it would be the fair thing to leave it on the board as a testimony to the persons ignorance. To delete it seems odd and clearly not in the overall interest of discussion and to a certain extent antagonism. There is always an element of justified antagonism in JW/Anti-JW issues. We call the JW sites for closing of threads that prickle their dub sensibilities. Can we not take it ourselves?
ISP
I hate the WT!
I hate Bill B!
I hate the GB!
i hate bleep!* singing*
"one of these things is not like the others,
one of these things in not quite the same,
one of these things will get your post deleted,
politicks - is one dangerous game",~~~ New Eyes
I saw Bleeps post prior to the editing and I found it tastless, because it contained "triggers"
I do not know if you are an abuse survivor/victim or not. Words written, a picture, a scent all these may be considered a "trigger." Triggers bring back the pain of the actual abuse as it was happening all over again.
What Fred Hall wrote and the graphic details may have been a trigger for some. I do not believe Hillary Step edited Fred's post because he made a nasty comment about Bill Bowen. I believe it was to protect those of us who may be affected by the description of the abuse in his post. MHO
Edited by - Cassiline on 17 August 2002 13:57:15
hillary step
Hi there -
Yes, as long as the opinion is held within the context of the website and not abuse for the sake of abuse, then yes, it should be allowed to stay. If one poster wants to have a go at Bill Bowen, then let him/her. They have a right to that opinion and it is for Bill's squad, to step in and defend him if they want to.
Of course there have to be rules, but not so strict that we are not allowed to view an alternate take on an issue. Personally, I would allow a person to air their racist/sexist/whatever views and then fight back with common sense, I would hope in this way, at some stage they would learn a little? If we simply delete posts which are not abusive as such, then it is a control that I think is unfair.
Having said all of that, I wasn't even allowed to see bleeps post, so I have no idea what the overall content was....
cya!
What Bleep wrote was descriptive pornography meant to shock and insult.
