Protesters at today’s assembly on the news (page 2)

WingCommander

Wow!! I am so ashamed to have grown up in this whack-a-do CULT!!!!!

The outright arrogance of that old bastard to speak to WGAL's reporter like that!!!

So much for "being courageous!!"

Fuck these pricks and the child molesters they protect.

FedUpJW

All invitations to private events are implied invitations and can be revoked for any reason.

Except that conventions ARE NOT private events. They are open TO THE PUBLIC, as in the useless busy work of spending weeks ahead of time slipping thousands of invitations into the doors of THE PUBLIC. Nice try though.

Vidiot

"...The doors to venue are blocked by attendant/guards and the reporter is refused entrance. When she asks 'Why'?, the attendant, with snide condescension tells her: 'Because we have revoked your *supposed* permission to even be here. That's why'..."

All because they happened to talk to XJWs first? Damn, that's petty.

What did they expect? That because they got the invitation, they'd not talk to protestors at the venue?

I swear, these guys do 90% of our job for us.

Doubter

Ok, I should have used different wording for the uninitiated:

Rented convention venues are private property for the entire time WT rents them, because WT is a private organization.

Therefore, there is no “right” to enter the building whether you were invited or not. Thus your invitation is merely implied.

This is really simple stuff.

_Morpheus

Except that conventions ARE NOT private events. They are open TO THE PUBLIC, as in the useless busy work of spending weeks ahead of time slipping thousands of invitations into the doors of THE PUBLIC. Nice try though.

False. They are most certainly and obviously private events. That you would argue otherwise is ludicrous. Not at all a good try on your part.

Dont let your watchtower hate get in the way of clear facts and common sense. Even if the reporter got in it wouldnt have made a bit of difference in her article. She also called ms “decons”, and every jw in the country rolled their eyes and stopped reading. If she cant get basic terminology right, if she cant be bothered with basic fact checking, it calls everything else into question.

AudeSapere

Doubter wrote: there is no “right” to enter the building whether you were invited or not.

You have read *waaayyy* too much into the reporter's question.

I understand your assertion but you are off-point.

Neither the reporter or anyone here in this thread said anything about her (or anyone) having a *right* to enter. She was NOT asserting her right.

She merely inquired as to the reason why she was given an invitation [as extended to the public with weeks of distribution of tracts throughout the area] and then denied assess when she arrived. It was a good question that got a snide and condescending reply. Not an answer to 'why'. Just a flippant reply as if he was brushing dandruff off his shoulder.

Why invite the public and then refuse them entrance simply because they spoke with a protester or two?

Fair and balanced reporting always seeks input and comments from both sides of a story. It is very common to see a news article say something like: The [newspaper] reached out to so-and-so-opposite-party but they have not responded our request for comment.

That denial of access on the basis of attempting to be balanced and listen to both sides of a story - which normal people should do - screams 'we have something to hide and must control all details of our actions and history'.

Doubter

Oh please. She was being sarcastic in an attempt to draw an imaginary contradiction between being invited and then being denied entry.

And I’m sure you fell for it..

As I said, invitations to private events are honored at the discretion of the sponsor of the event, and no reason for denying entry is necessary. But she was denied clearly because he was not there for the event. She was there to inquire of members their response to the accusations made by protestors.

Valid reason to deny them.

Thats how this stuff works.

freddo

Doubter, somewhere in his jw-addled condescending posts wonders what the Watchtower loses of significance because of protests like this one in Philadelphia.

What they lose is members and their money as tangible losses. They lose credibility as intangible ones. They lose the ability to bring in replacements for those who die or leave.

That is significant loss.

AudeSapere

Oh Please! I didn't fall for anything. It's very clear she knew what she was doing. She wasn't being sarcastic. She was trying to get him on camera saying/implying that JWs are control freaks and refuse to give any regard to former members.

Mission accomplished.

Doubter

Lol, so you admit she was there to bait them and not to actually attend the event.

So you basically validated their reason for revoking her invitation.

They had every reason to deny her entry.

Protesters at today’s assembly on the news

Share this