To the Shameful F iends Who Attack Ray: A PARABLE.

by Focus 10 Replies latest jw friends

  • Focus
    Focus

    This parable is for the (few) Shameful F iends who are attacking Ray... and the Sheep Class who are rushing along, thinking they have understood (rather like they thought they understood the truth of "Mother's" teachings?).

    THE PARABLE OF THE PAINTING
    "I am the most trusted servant commissioned by my employer Enoch to go to market to buy a work of art for him as an investment (the stockmarket keeps falling, so...). There, I am offered a painting by an Artist, Achan. I don't really like the painting, and Achan is a bit shifty in his effusive praise of his own work. Achan claims to be "inspired!". But I know I have no knowledge of paintings, and I am just trying to do the best job for my employer. Achan tells me that the elderly Caleb is an unbiased, neutral, expert, well-loved, experienced art Critic, and he will guide me. So I seek out Caleb, and ask for his opinion on Achan's painting. He is genuinely very nice. Caleb tells me that the painting has its flaws but he won't condemn it or state that it would not be likely to be a wise investment "in the long term". I accept and rely on Caleb's dispassionate judgment as an expert. I attribute my dislike of the painting to my own poor taste. I buy the painting and take it back to my employer, Enoch.
    The next day, Eric's old logic teacher Fookus comes to visit my master's house. Fookus irritates many of us because he is almost always right, and he knows it too, and does not care if we do. Tact is not his strong point! This Fookus hears about the transaction, laughs (cruelly, I think) and tells Eric, in my presence, that Achan, the painter of the work I bought for Enoch, had while painting that same painting been following set RULES written down in a well-known "Caleb's Painting Technique Guide Book" that had been written twenty years ago by the VERY SAME ART CRITIC Caleb - and Caleb (at the time Caleb gave me his expert opinion yesterday) as an expert would have known that Achan had been following his own (Caleb's) rules (as well as his own individual painting ways).
    Caleb, having grown wiser since writing that book all those years ago, has changed his mind on the technical rules for painting since. But I can't help feeling a little embarrassed. I should really have preferred it if Caleb had declined to comment to me, or pointed out that he could not really be neutral here as it was the application of Caleb's own "rules" upon which his opinion was being solicited. While Caleb's views may well be totally sincere, my fellow-servants (who would love to discredit me with Enoch, my employer, as they covet my position) can suggest I was foolish to rely on Caleb's judgment, as it could not BE SEEN TO BE WHOLLY DETACHED.
    I am angry and embarrassed that I now appear to be a fool in front of Enoch and my peers of the Servant Class. So, with human weakness, I slander Fookus, the bearer of the unwelcome information, and shout:
    (a) Fookus, you are despicable for attacking Caleb who is such a nice and honest man (but Fookus had not attacked Caleb, or implied anything bad about him - he had just stated two absolute facts);
    (b) Fookus, how dare you insinuate that Caleb's book was written with bad intent - Caleb genuinely believed those rules produced good results back when he wrote them twenty years ago? (but Fookus had not done any such thing at all - Caleb's book, rules or his sincerity when he wrote the rules was never the issue);
    (c) Fookus, how dare you hold Caleb responsible for the poor painting done by Achan ("hindsight is so valuable")? (but Fookus had not held Caleb at all responsible for the misuse to which his rules had been put).
    (d) Fookus, how dare you insinuate Caleb and Achan were in league together (but Fookus had not insinuated any such thing, and actually he believes Caleb is now very critical of Achan the artist - just a little reluctant to admit that his OWN rules produced such a bad painting, a very human failing especially in an older person).
    By introducing these strawmen, I hoped my own foolishness at not checking the background to my source, and possible sources of inadvertent bias, would be overlooked by Eric my master in the confusion.
    So I say: "Damn that wicked Fookus! LET US ALL STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS! IT IS UNPRODUCTIVE! IT IS WRONG!"
    [Translation: Fookus caught me out and made me look foolish.]
    And I have many aliases and stooges in the servant's quarters, so we'll all say it, and churn the issue so the uninformed will get confused, so hopefully I won't get the blame. I really like Caleb.
    But Eric was wise, and saw that Fookus (who also likes Caleb) had both:
    1. not said what I claimed he had said, and
    2. had stated only FACTS as to Caleb's authorship of the guide book and Caleb's embarrassed knowledge that Achan had followed that book.
    Alas! Eric no longer trusts me with his important errands until I show I have learned to be more careful, discerning and not to blame others (Caleb or Fookus) falsely for my own folly, shortcomings and poor logic. I hate Fookus now. Shun him!"

    --

    The parable is deliberately not exact.

    For those who still cannot comprehend (doh!), material has been placed HERE in a new post on the "Bill Bowen: a 'burial' ONLY for those who can read" thread where I spell out enough, to make the relevance of this parable clear even to the Matt. 7:26 Class. The baying of Ray's embarrassing defenders, and the virulence of their calumnies heaped upon Silentlambs compels me to be more explicit than I would have otherwise chosen.

    Yes, I think Bill could have handled this with more subtlety, and probably keeping a clearer distinction between his personal views and the aims of Silentlambs would have been wise. "Hindsight" is useful. But "Hid Sight", the Watchtower's Tool, is despicable.

    But Bill is his own man (as is Ray), and so it should be. There is no Borgian central management, and no CEO. We are not like that which we despise.

    --
    Focus
    (Pickax Class)

    Edited by - Focus on 31 October 2002 13:1:58

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    No one is defending Ray. Here it is in easy simple terms: Bill slandered Ray needlessly. No personality cult, no slight misunderstanding ... no his view verses her view ... just plain old everyday saying things that are not true, and hurting the reputation of another ... Ray defended himself, period. Ray clearly states he does not support the Watchtower molestation policy, and that he hates molestation, and that he never intended for the idiots at Watchtower headqaurters to misuse what was intended as a policy to bring justice to those falsly accused ... you know, like the American court system of being innocent until proben guilty ... Bill did not really like what Ray said, and posts like yours do not get the simple picture, but instead keep accusing everyone of talking and defending Ray Franz ... but wait, there is more ... I plan a whole new post, possible tonight, that will add more fuel to the fire, and give you much more to prognosticate.

  • IslandWoman
    IslandWoman

    Amazing,

    Thank you!

    IW

  • Trauma_Hound
    Trauma_Hound
    Ray clearly states he does not support the Watchtower molestation policy, and that he hates molestation, and that he never intended for the idiots at Watchtower headqaurters to misuse what was intended as a policy to bring justice to those falsly accused ..

    Then why didn't he say this to the Media?

  • IslandWoman
    IslandWoman

    TH,

    Ray clearly states he does not support the Watchtower molestation policy, and that he hates molestation, and that he never intended for the idiots at Watchtower headqaurters to misuse what was intended as a policy to bring justice to those falsly accused ..
    Then why didn't he say this to the Media?

    1. Did they ask Ray if he "supports the Watchtower molestation policy"?

    2. Did they ask him if he hates molestation?

    3. Did they ask him if he ever "intended for the Watchtower to misuse what was intended as a policy to bring justice to those falsely accused.?"

    He answered the questions posed to him. If Bill wanted something more too bad. I'm glad RF did what he did because it helped to expose BB and some others here who have become vultures.

    IW

    Edited by - IslandWoman on 31 October 2002 18:19:2

  • Focus
    Focus

    I was waiting specifically for you here, Amazing.

    Amazing wrote:

    No one is defending Ray.

    You are not (really?), but some are. I am, for one.

    Here it is in easy simple terms: Bill slandered Ray needlessly.

    As I have said many a time here: Bill is brash. He is a showman. The media needs that. The media understands almost only that, alas.

    I agree completely that Bill was most impolitic and tactless in the present escapade, even by my standards.

    No personality cult

    But there is a personality cult built up around Ray.

    As I have posted thrice in the last three days, it is obviously unsought and unwanted by Ray. But Dubs have been trained to follow men. So some ex-Dubs - a bit like those who have left the armed forces - naturally gravitate to the most personable and plausible leader... Ray.
    Whether he wants it or not, he has a Fan Club.

    [While I admire much of what he has done, I am not a member]

    It is this very aura that makes his relative silence to the media something that detracts from the cause of the silent lambs.

    saying things [snip] hurting the reputation of another

    Agreed and disliked by me too. And then Bill retracted, and then sort of the retraction got retracted...

    Bill's hurt too, right? The movement is his baby and someone whom he knows could help him and whom he feels SHOULD help him, won't or can't help him in the way in which he wants.

    You Know how moms are with their babies? Even jW moms.

    Ray defended himself, period.

    Clearly his right.

    Ray clearly states he does not support the Watchtower molestation policy, and that he hates molestation, and that he never intended for the idiots at Watchtower headqaurters to misuse what was intended as a policy to bring justice to those falsly accused

    All known, agreed, and understood (though I am confident you are putting some strong words into Ray's mouth here - now had he expressed himself so stridently to the media....).

    Ray's intention was to foster an atmosphere that made it harder to discipline and DF people simply as a result of rumor.

    In the climate of yesteryear, and in the confines of Bethel, he did not think through how the villains would apply the rule.

    SO WHY DID RAY NOT PUT THIS INTO A CHAPTER INTO HIS BOOK? THIS IS FAR BIGGER THAN THE U.N. THING!

    He cannot conceivably be held personally liable in a court of law for the consequences of those words, as - to the extent that he was responsible for penning them - he was working as a servant of a corporate entity who published them, simply putting into words the "will" of the Society which subsequently expanded on them after he was no longer part of the cult. Which corporate entity? The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Such lawsuits as materialized would be against the publisher, and that means Brooklyn. If anyone was in a position to sue him, it would have to be the Watchtower - and I do not think that suit would get beyond its first hearing. Well, you know about Internet "attorneys", so the usual disclaimers apply.

    Bill did not really like what Ray said,

    Agreed.

    and posts like yours do not get the simple picture,

    Because the picture is not that simple?

    The interest of the minor, the child is paramount. Where was that suggested or made clear in what Ray wrote BACK THEN?

    but instead keep accusing everyone of talking and defending Ray Franz

    You have misread my writings. I am here to defend Ray, not to accuse him (we are all honorable men); accordingly, why would I accuse others of defending him unless they are doing it in a way that, as I see it, will ultimately damage him?

    I love Ray. I cannot forgive him, but I do love him. He is seriously misled in some of the beliefs he clings to, but they are (in my view) benevolent beliefs, applied by a man whose own God is as kind as he is (cf. jehovah-bin-Watchtower, who is anything but kind). I have heaped praise (unwanted by him, I am sure) upon Ray these last two days.

    But IMO he does need to do more on this one issue - to inform himself, as far as is possible given the Watchtower's secrecy and "Hid Sight" policy, as to the magnitude of the Pedophile phenomenon within "God's" organization (expressed in approximate/likely percentage terms) And then to get himself squarely into position on the right side.

    ... but wait, there is more ... I plan a whole new post, possible tonight, that will add more fuel to the fire, and give you much more to prognosticate.

    I await it with eagerness!

    If you cast your eye over my little tinklings in JWD, you will find an old thread originated by myself VIEWED BY CLICKING RIGHT HERE .

    In this thread, I present evidence (NOT Proof, as stated assumptions are made( to show that as many as 1 in 10 adult male jWs in the U.S. and Europe may well be a PEDOPHILE. I do not wish to go through all the reasonings again here - explore the link. I point out that by no means all pedophiles are abusers (the definition of a pedophile is one who HAS the urge or feels the attraction - he/she may resist acting upon this). While I disclose the assumptions made, and the data relied upon, you may assess for yourself a lower bound to this estimate. Even if it is ten times lower than the headline blurb, it is an outrageous epidemic. The comments made by another participant helped bringing out a common terminological misunderstanding (of which I had already notified Silentlambs).

    It allows one to get some sort of a handle on the alleged 23,720 cases of child abuse (over the period covered - which is...).

    Do me a favor, Amazing, and put this fairly before Ray? Thank you. He is a man, as I have repeatedly said here, who responds better to reasoning than to emotion (or threats!).

    --
    Focus
    (Parbeelzebubbles Class)

    Edited by - Focus on 31 October 2002 19:8:4

  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Focus: Bill slandered, period. The 'media needs a showman' is merely finding an excuse for dishonorable behavior ... yes, the media 'feeds' on that stuff ... but the victims do not need that stuff done on their behalf. I am not defending Ray, as I have not stated my position on what I think he could-should do or say ... I am not attacking anyone ... I am stating my observations as I honestly see them.

    TH:

    Then why didn't he say this to the Media?

    Unless this happened in the last several days, to my knowledge, the media did not and has not asked him. Those whole claim that the media asked, need to identify the reporter and the news agency involved ... as Ray's attorney would be most interested to know who claims to be the reporter who obtained the answers he never gave. As for the media, Ray stated why he does not do that. Period.

    IW: Your welcome ... and my post about SilentLambs / Ray Franz is forthcoming.

  • Derrick
    Derrick
    Bill slandered, period. The 'media needs a showman' is merely finding an excuse for dishonorable behavior ... yes, the media 'feeds' on that stuff ... but the victims do not need that stuff done on their behalf. I am not defending Ray, as I have not stated my position on what I think he could-should do or say ... I am not attacking anyone ... I am stating my observations as I honestly see them.

    That is quite an amazing observation, considering that Bill stated his observations as he honestly saw them.

    I almost added that perhaps you're pointing out that observations turn into "slander" when those observations do not paint the observed in a favorable light. However, considering that your observation is that "Bill slandered, period" and further alludes to "dishonorable behavior" that Bill is implied to have "done on the (victims) behalf," you're honest observations paint Bill in an unfavorable light the same as Bill's honest observations paint Ray in an unfavorable light.

    In MY HONEST OBSERVATION you are observing that "Bill slandered" because it was, well, Bill who did it. Of course you did NOT slander Bill in your unfavorable but let's not forget HONEST observation about him, because you did it.

    May I also make the honest observation that some people define "slander" as honest criticism when it is they who are doing the honest criticizing. When it is someone else making the honest observation about someone that casts them in an unfavorable light, suddenly it becomes "slander." I am not defending Bill, as I have not stated my position on what I think he could-should do or say ... I am not attacking anyone ... I am stating my observations as I honestly see them.

    Derrick

  • SixofNine
    SixofNine

    Focus: Bill slandered, period.

    Perhaps, Amazing, you could grow the fuck up, and get over it? Just a thought born in light of the bigger picture.

    Edited by - SixofNine on 31 October 2002 21:4:45

  • Focus
    Focus

    Der Rick, how dare you purloin my thoughts using some highly scientific means, maybe that individual negative gravity device you have, or the battleship-powering atomic energy you keep stored in your finger-nail (so there is no danger of ever falling down stairs, as you would just turn it and go back up again)? And then pen them down as your own reply to Amazing? Did your mindreading include the use of antimatter or not?

    I work towards a rapprochement, at least in part, between the parties. All competent help is welcomed.

    In his reply, Amazing has ignored the part of the post dealing with molestation statistics. I am confident he will not overlook it.

    --
    Focus
    (Simply, Amazing Class)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit