Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel (page 25)

_Morpheus

In theory they get the same as everyone else at bethel. In reality the green handshakes as leader of a cult must be phenomenal

_Morpheus

Milton henschel had a bear skin on his bed.... In his house suite.....

sir82

In reality the green handshakes as leader of a cult must be phenomenal

Exactly so.

In the JW subculture, giving gobs of money and outsized gifts (all expenses vacation, $500 restaurant meals, etc.) is considered a "privilege". They are people who seriously live for such "privileges". The higher up the person to whom you can give such extravagant gifts, the more prestige & influence you will have.

The gold pinky ring, the Rolex, the penthouse suite on the cruise ship....that all comes from wealthy JWs who want to be noticed.

For many, I think it is some kind of warped viewpoint of Matthew 25 ("to the extent that you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me").

TheListener

We should discuss the bethel room selection process. Remember when room selection was coming up and every new boy tried to be best friends with a lifer? You see, the longer you've been in continuous full-time service (regular pioneer and bethelite) the more likely you are to get a room.

Everyone puts their name in for certain rooms that are available and the one with the most seniority gets it. So if you have a friend or potential roommate with tons of seniority you are going to live in style. If you are new boy with only new boy friends - you're life sucks and you are going to move a lot.

The only time a new boy could get an awesome place is when they first arrive and the room selection took place before their arrival and someone left or died so a great room is available and you get it - until the next selection (annually if I remember correctly).

It was a total freeforall.

Doctor Who

Fisherman

This is said from an ethical perspective and not a legal one, though these two perspectives often overlap.Marvin

"Unless the recipient has some duty of confidentiality (e.g., physician-patient, attorney-client, trade secret disclosed in communication), the recipient is free to share the information with anyone. However, under some circumstances, the sender might sue the recipient for publicity given to private life, under Restatement (Second) Torts § 652D (1977)." In summary, the author of an e-mail message generally can not prevent disclosure of the message by the recipient.

Sometimes, attorneys misuse the phrase "e-mail" to describe messages sent to a group of people in a chat room. Such communications to a chat room fail the second part of the Katz test, since society does not recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in disclosures made in a public forum. In a chat room, there will be people who are unknown to the author of communications with the chat room, so there can be no legitimate expectation of privacy in a chat room.

Use of a chat room must be carefully distinguished from sending e-mail to one person, which is a private communication, analogous to a telephone call or first-class letter via the U.S. Post Office. U.S. v. Charbonneau, 979 F.Supp. 1177 (S.D.Ohio 1997) <reasonable expectation of privacy>

What is your point of view Marvin? Seems to me that it is not good advice to tell someone that they acted responsibly when disclosing the contents of private communication. At the very least the person could open themselves to legal problems. And, is it really a gift when the gift is governed by law? And if in some cases a Court of Law can rule that disclosing a private communication is wrong conduct. who are you to decide that doing so is ethical and responsible and a gift when it is contingent not on the receiver (as you have ass erted) but on the sender (who can reasonably expect privacy, and can claim that he was harmed), the contents, and the Courts. Does ethical and legal conduct overlap when a Judge decides that the conduct was wrong?

Disclosing private communication is wrong conduct . Do things responsibly and ethically, ask the sender first.

Marvin Shilmer

Disclosing private communication is wrong conduct.

That's a generalization that is not always true. Sometimes disclosing private communication is unethical and/or illegal and sometimes it's not. In fact, sometimes the only right conduct is to disclose private communications!

Do things responsibly and ethically, ask the sender first.

It is a responsible act to ask a sender before sharing their communications, but it is not necessarily an irresponsible act to share a sender's communication without asking them. Sometimes the right thing is not to inform a sender you are going to share their communications.

What is your point of view Marvin?

That you've made much ado about nothing in this discussion. The original poster has done nothing unethical, immoral or illegal in this instance insofar as I can see or has been shown. My point of view is as I've said earlier, that you're showing the south end of a north bound horse. That's what I'm seeing because that's what you've shown. Just above you go on by quoting legalese. If you think anyone here has broken a law my recommendation is that you call local law enforcement and report the crime. My view is that you're making a mole hill out of flatland by forcing details into a very narrow and self-serving clump you apparently think of as "fact".

Fisherman

Sometimes disclosing private communication is unethical and/or illegal- Marvin

And you do not get to decide. Thank you for listening Marvin

Fisherman

Morpheus we are just having a discussion here, that is all. Relax

Marvin Shilmer

Morpheus we are just having a discussion here, that is all. Relax
My impression is that _Morpheus has been relaxed throughout this entire circus of a discussion.

Question and answers for fisherperson regardingy time at bethel

Share this