"Silentlambs" was the "Messenger...

by Gilgamesh 46 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  safe4kids

  Whoah, before emotions get too het up (I hope)...

  I think that Sloan has a point, in that many of us are tired of the battles currently raging. Also, who of us doesn't feel the need to come to the defense of people that we care greatly about? Remember that Bill has other family members who are NOT in the limelight and yet who are hurt by what are seen as attacks on him.

  Hillary also has a point, in that people ARE going to discuss and make assessments based on information discussed publicly. I didn't really see the above post as a character assassination, more of an assessment as HS said.

  Personally, I have jumped to conclusions and said things in the heat of the moment that I've regretted before. Perhaps some of that is happening lately.

  Just my thoughts,

  Dana

  *gasping* and averting eyes from expat's sausages!

  Edited by - safe4kids on 23 December 2002 15:5:50
• 

  Mulan

  Before everyone starts attacking, SLOAN, you should know that Bill Bowen is her sister's husband. Naturally, she is going to be protective of him. I totally understand that.

  I love Bill. He is an amazing man. It doesn't mean I approve of everything he has done and said, though. (still practicing with my sunglasses)
• 

  Gilgamesh

  Sloan, wednesday, LongHauler,

  Thanks for the reminder about getting a life. You are quite right. Don't get the idea it was that much work, however. I am quite lazy when it comes to computers. I started from the football-delayed 60 Minutes and worked through most of Law and Order that finished at 10:00. I kept telling myself that it was mindless work and I would have been up anyway watching TV (and between loads of laundry ). But you are right: 'tisn't the season for this folly.

  Also, if Simon is wondering how I could check so many without that much bandwidth last night, I had previously used a utility (Offline Commander Pro) to grab thousands of posts automatically so I could read them on the train going to work. It can grab thousands of pages in a seconds which I can then index and I therefore don't have to hit jwd servers for my boolean searches. Processing the info offline keeps my bandwidth off the live servers. Still, this is probably something Simon wouldn't recommend because one could be tempted to save time by opening too many connections to get the downloads so quickly that it appears to be a Denial of Service. I let mine run slowly, but don't plan on running another download, anyway.

  I defend my interest in what's going on with silentlambs and Bill Bowen, however, on separate grounds. I believe it's very important.

  Gilgamesh

  Edited by - Gilgamesh on 23 December 2002 15:13:57
• 

  outnfree

  I thought ExpatBrit had bananas to whip out, not sausages!
• 

  Simon

  Good job Gilgamesh ... your risk being deactivated doing things like that.

  I'd appreciate it if people would *not* do that. If they have a burning need then email me first as there are much more efficient ways of doing it.

  Edited by - Simon on 23 December 2002 15:16:51
• 

  expatbrit

  Simon, please deactivate all these double entendre cracking people, they're making me blush. And this is a serious thread which we wouldn't want hijacked into trivial frivolity.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Gilgamesh

  Simon,

  I realized later it might not be such a good idea, even though I've used the tool to run backup snapshots of several of our corporate sites for the auditors. I see that a lot of people run the utility that comes with IE under Add to Favorites/Make Available Offline/Customize/. This utility can be even worse because it could go several pages deep without slowing down. The utility I have used allows for pauses between page downloads.

  Gilgamesh
• 

  Simon

  I already block the IE offline spider. I will probably have to block others too.

  I'm sure you understand that if too many people did this then I would simply have to put a limit on the number of pages that people could be allowed to view and I don't want to have to do that.
• 

  Simon

  BTW: I did do an offline archive of the site some time ago but never kept it up to date. I will re-instate this once the new site is up and running.
• 

  hillary_step

  All I can say is that sometimes having a rational, unbiased debate with XJW's is often even more difficult than doing the same with a convinced JW.

  Let me say this once for all time - personality is of no interest to me whatsoever. The BB and RF issue was imho a faint speck on the window of theological history and hardly of any real importance. I am sure that BB has lived to regret going public with his thoughts, but then we all have such regrets at times. I have been a continuous voice of defense on behalf of JW's who are vilified just for being JW's by many. A person is no greater or lesser than the methodology they use and the ideology they maintain, that is, the things they do and the things that they believe in.

  I have heard so much thought expressed about 'damaging the cause' of SL by debating its modus operandi. Exactly how is this cause damaged? The WTS will be bought to book by the courts, not by this discussion Board, BB, RF nor myself. No cause is or should be beyond public scrutiny. Can we not learn that the reason that the WTS ran roughshod over our dreams was exactly because its methodology was never put under scrutiny. We all remained silent lest we 'damage the cause'. It is from such scrutiny and analysis that growth occurs. Do not silence the dissident voice. No right thinking person would ever question the goal of SL, every right thinking person should question its methodology, especially if they are witness to it publicly.

  I have, as I have mentioned before been involved at Board level in the running of a number of charitable concerns which evoke equal emotional crystallization as does the SL issue. I have seen many worthy causes left in smoke and ashes due to a lack of discretion on the part of some, often a group, who thought themselves unimpeachable and beyond criticism. Please recognize this danger and resist the temptation of placing persons in camps, i.e You are for BB or against him, You are for the WTS or against it, you are 'for the cause of children or against it'. Simplistic reasoning such as this is counterproductive to any cause in the long-run, however well intentioned.

  HS

  Edited by - hillary_step on 23 December 2002 15:44:41