Best Website in the world - JWORG

by TheWonderofYou 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  David_Jay

  darkspilver wrote:

  ? Don't try to blame technology - the principle is that, if the catholics wanted it all on one website, one website could handle it - vis-a-vis youtube - but the catholics have decided not to.

  Another example of people who are ready to argue but not ready to read your comments and realize that they just agreed with you.

  I had already written:

  If it was a real need, believe me the Catholic Church would have the most efficient of all religious sites because of the money and political control they wield. And it would be effective at controlling the traffic of billions of visitors. Necessity is the mother of invention. The point is, however, that religions aren't in the business of building a better more widely used and more translated website than the other church.
• 

  darkspilver

  David_Jay wrote
  

  Another example of people who are ready to argue but not ready to read your comments and realize that they just agreed with you.
  

  Another example of people who use a straw-man argument when they read your comments and realize that they were wrong.
  

  I was purely making the factual comment that a website could handle 1.2 billion visits - therefore if the Catholic Church or Youtube or whoever wanted a website to cater for 1.2 billion people it is possible - there was no comment regarding the need or requirement or anything else - purely that it is technically possible.

  Therefore the reason why the Catholic Church does not have 'one' website is NOT because of an issue with the technology - it is for another reason - but do NOT blame the lack of technology as being the reason!

  I had already written:
  

  Could one website handle the traffic of 1.2 billion plus people?
  

  I believe youtube gets 20.5 billion visits-per-month - videos are not exactly 'light-weight' traffic

  So, yes, it is likely that one website could handle the traffic of 1.2 billion plus people.
• 

  David_Jay

  Darkspliver,

  I never said there was a lack of technology.

  I used to work as the Assistant Director of IT for the largest Catholic diocesan territory in the United States after I left the Watchtower. I have assisted in creating two sites used by the Roman Catholic Church in America. I also helped develop the current e-membership system they use today, not to mention traveled across hundreds and hundreds of miles to work with parish office personnel to instruct them on how to use it. I worked in IT from 1987-2007.

  I don't get where you are coming from. My argument was always that they didn't have a desire for such a system. I merely mentioned if one can imagine how demanding it would be if there was one, not that it was impossible. I've sat on numerous meetings in the pastoral offices among bishops and clergy where the possibility of such things have been discussed.

  I think you are arguing against a misreading of what I wrote. Even if I wrote one of my posts badly enough to cause this misreading of yours in the first place, my follow-up post and this one should suffice in letting you know that I have never, ever been arguing about the technological side.

  If you need to know more and have actual data on what bishop, dioceses, and parishes I worked for, I will gladly put you in touch with them to verify this claim of mine. I just don't know why you're arguing about this with me over something I never said.

  Chill out. I'm not the enemy here.
• 

  darkspilver

  That's cool

  it was simply your 'throwaway' comment:

  Could one website handle the traffic of 1.2 billion plus people?

  Which I understood to be a rhetorical-style question referencing the apparent lack of technology to handle this large number - vis-a-vis a website such as youtube that does actually handle 20 or so billion visitors with video files.

  I like to cross the t's and dot the i's
  
• 

  David_Jay

  Darkspilver,

  It was rhetorical.

  A "rhetorical" question is...

  ...a question asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.--Google American English Dictionary, italics added.

  They are questions asked in order to offer a comparison, create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer. They often employ hyperbole, so a rhetorical style question is never meant to reference anything literal.

  So what you mean is that you thought I was asking a "non-rhetorical" question, not as you wrote:

  Which I understood to be a rhetorical-style question referencing the apparent lack of technology to handle this large number...

  It's okay that you like to cross "Ts" and dot "Is," and I admire that. So I hope you don't take it badly when I say you missed learning what "rhetorical" means.

  Otherwise, I hope we're cool.
• 

  darkspilver

  Ah right, cool - you where using the question because, of course, a single website coud handle 1.2 billlion visitors without crashing. np